[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5313]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 11, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 63




National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From Magnetic Tape 
Manufacturing Operations; Proposed Rule
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-4845-8]
RIN 2060-AC98

 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; 
Proposed Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From Magnetic 
Tape Manufacturing Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing standards that would limit emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from existing and new magnetic tape 
manufacturing operations that are part of major sources. The proposed 
standards implement sections 112(d) and 112(h) of the Clean Air Act as 
amended in 1990 (the Act), which requires the Administrator to regulate 
emissions of HAP listed in section 112(b) of the Act. The intent of the 
proposed standards is to protect the public by requiring new and 
existing major sources to control emissions to the level corresponding 
to the maximum achievable control technology (MACT), taking into 
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reductions, any non-
air quality and other air quality-related health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before April 25, 1994. 
Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide 
interested persons an opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, 
or arguments concerning the proposed standards for the magnetic tape 
manufacturing industry. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak 
at a public hearing by April 5, 1994, a public hearing will be held on 
April 13, 1994 beginning at 10 a.m. Persons interested in attending the 
hearing should notify Ms. Julia Latta at (919) 541-5578 to verify that 
a hearing will occur.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if 
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 
Attention, Docket No. A-91-31, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests that a 
separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public 
hearing, the hearing will be held at the EPA Office of Administration 
Auditorium in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons wishing 
to present oral testimony must contact the EPA by April 5, 1994 by 
contacting Ms. Julia Latta, Standards Development Branch (MD-13), U. S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5578.
    Background Information Document. The Background Information 
Document (BID) for the proposed standards may be obtained from the 
docket or from the U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to, 
``Hazardous Air Pollutants from Magnetic Tape Manufacturing--Background 
Information for Proposed Standards,'' EPA-453/R-93-059.
    Docket. Docket No. A-91-31, containing supporting information used 
in developing the proposed standards, is available for public 
inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 
Waterside Mall, room 1500, 1st Floor, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460. Telephone (202) 260-7548. The proposed regulatory text and other 
materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the 
docket. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning regulatory 
decisions and the proposed standards, contact Ms. Gail Lacy at (919) 
541-5261, Standards Development Branch, Emissions Standards Division 
(MD-13), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble 
is organized as follows:

I. Summary of Proposed Standards.
    A. Applicability of the Standards.
    B. Actual Standards and Format of the Standards.
    C. Monitoring Requirements.
    D. Test Methods for Compliance.
    E. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.
II. List of Source Categories.
III. Background.
IV. Authority for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants Decision Process.
    A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development.
    B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP.
V. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Economic, and Cost Impacts.
    A. Environmental Impacts.
    B. Energy Impacts.
    C. Economic Impacts.
    D. Cost Impacts.
VI. Rationale.
    A. Selection of Pollutant and Source Category for Control.
    B. Selection of Emission Points.
    C. Selection of Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards for 
Existing Sources.
    D. Selection of Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards for 
New Sources.
    E. Pollution Prevention Considerations.
    F. Selection of Format.
    G. Selection of Emission Limits, Work Practice, and Equipment 
Standards.
    H. Selection of Monitoring Requirements.
    I. Selection of Compliance Test Methods.
    J. Selection of Definition of Affected Source.
    K. Selection of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.
    L. Applicability of the General Provisions.
VII. Administrative Requirements.
    A. Public Hearing.
    B. Docket.
    C. Executive Order 12866.
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act.
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    F. Miscellaneous.
    G. Statutory Authority.

    The proposed regulatory text is not included in this Federal 
Register notice, but is available in Docket No. A-91-31 or by request 
from the EPA contact persons designated earlier in this notice free of 
charge. The proposed regulatory language is also available on the 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN), one of EPA's electronic bulletin 
boards. TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 
areas of air pollution control. The service is free, except for the 
cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up to a 14,400 bps modem. 
If more information on TTN is needed call the HELP line at (919) 541-
5384.

I. Summary of Proposed Standards

    This section provides an overview of:
    (1) The applicability of the standards;
    (2) The format of the standards;
    (3) The actual standards;
    (4) The monitoring requirements;
    (5) The test methods for compliance; and
    (6) The reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Detailed 
discussions concerning the statutory basis and the selection rationale 
for the proposed standards are provided in sections IV and VI, 
respectively, of this preamble.

A. Applicability of the Standards

    The proposed standards apply to new and existing major sources 
emitting HAP from magnetic tape manufacturing operations, according to 
certain criteria. First, a source is subject to all of the provisions 
of the standards if it is major, that is, if it has the potential to 
emit greater than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr 
(25 tons/yr) of any combination of HAP. Second, a major source actually 
utilizing less than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr 
(25 tons/yr) of any combination of HAP is subject only to an annual 
recordkeeping and reporting requirement (Sec. 63.703(g)) of the 
proposed rule. Finally, research or laboratory facilities are not 
subject to the provisions of the standards unless they are collocated 
with production lines.
    Several solvent and particulate HAP are used in the magnetic tape 
manufacturing industry. Solvent HAP used include methyl ethyl ketone 
(MEK), toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), toluene diisocyanate, 
ethylene glycol, methanol, xylenes, ethyl benzene, and acetaldehyde. 
The HAP solvents that are used to the greatest extent are MEK, toluene, 
and MIBK. The other HAP are used in small quantities at only a few 
facilities in the source category. Chromium and cobalt, which are 
particulate HAP, are also used. These are the HAP expected to be 
emitted by this industry; however, the proposed standards apply to 
emissions of all 189 HAP listed in section 112(b).
    This standard covers HAP emission sources that result from magnetic 
tape manufacturing operations. Products manufactured as a result of 
these operations include video and audio tape, and computer diskettes. 
Production of nonmagnetic products may require use of some of the same 
equipment as is needed for magnetic products. For example, leader tape 
is the tape at the beginning of an audio or video cassette that does 
not contain magnetic media. Leader tape is manufactured on the same 
type of equipment that is used to manufacture magnetic tape, and is 
directly related to manufacturing operations. Therefore, the production 
of leader tape is considered as part of magnetic tape manufacturing 
operations.
    Likewise, other products may be manufactured using the same 
solvents and equipment that are used to coat the tape with magnetic 
material. If HAP are used during their production, and the same 
equipment that is used for manufacturing magnetic tape products is used 
in their manufacture, the provisions of this standard apply when these 
products are being manufactured.
    Sources in a magnetic tape manufacturing operation that are 
affected by the standards include but are not limited to:
    (1) The solvent storage tanks;
    (2) The mix preparation equipment;
    (3) The coating operation;
    (4) The waste handling devices;
    (5) The particulate transfer operations;
    (6) The wash sinks for cleaning removable parts;
    (7) Cleaning involving the flushing of fixed lines;
    (8) Wastewater treatment systems; and
    (9) Condenser vents in the solvent recovery area except the vent on 
a condenser that is used as the primary control device.
    A description of the emission points within magnetic tape 
manufacturing operations can be found in section VI.B.

B. Actual Standards and Format of the Standards

    The proposed standards are expressed in terms of percent control of 
HAP, as outlet concentrations of HAP, and as equipment standards for 
the various emission points that comprise the magnetic tape operation. 
A summary of the requirements of the proposed standards is provided in 
table 1.

     Table 1.--Summary of the Requirements of the Proposed Standards    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Emission point                          Standards             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent storage tanks..............  95-percent overall HAP control     
                                      efficiency.a, b                   
Mix preparation equipment..........  95-percent overall HAP control     
                                      efficiency.a, b                   
Coating operation equipment........  95-percent overall HAP control     
                                      efficiency.a, b                   
Waste handling devices.............  95-percent overall HAP control     
                                      efficiency.a, b                   
Condenser vents in solvent recovery  95-percent overall HAP control     
                                      efficiency.a, b                   
Wastewater treatment systems.......  Remove 99 percent of the HAP in the
                                      wastewater or achieve a total HAP 
                                      outlet concentration of 50 ppmw.  
Wash sinks for cleaning removable    88-percent overall HAP control     
 parts.                               efficiency.                       
Particulate transfer devices.......  Equipment standard--use enclosed   
                                      transfer device.                  
Cleaning involving the flushing of   Equipment standard--use closed     
 fixed lines.                         system for flushing fixed lines or
                                      vent open containers to a control 
                                      device.                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aThe overall control efficiency is the product of the capture efficiency
  and the control efficiency.                                           
bFor sources using incinerators as control devices an alternate emission
  limit of 20 ppmv HAP is allowed.                                      

    As indicated in Table 1, the proposed standards require an overall 
HAP control efficiency (the product of capture efficiency and control 
efficiency) of 95 percent for solvent storage tanks, mix preparation 
equipment, coating operations, waste handling devices, and condenser 
vents in solvent recovery. If an incinerator is used to control these 
emission points, an alternate emission limit of 20 ppmv is allowed.
    For wastewater treatment systems, either 99 percent of the HAP 
present in the wastewater discharge must be removed, or an outlet HAP 
concentration of less than 50 parts per million by weight (ppmw) must 
be achieved.
    For the wash sinks, emissions must be controlled by 88 percent. 
This can be achieved by maintaining a 75-percent freeboard ratio. 
Alternatively, an owner or operator can control HAP emissions from wash 
sinks by venting them to a 95-percent efficient control device.
    Equipment standards are required to control emissions from 
particulate transfer operations and the cleaning of fixed lines by 
flushing.
    For the transfer of particulates from the holding tanks to the 
mixing area, the proposed standards require that an enclosed transfer 
device as defined in Sec. 63.702 must be used to transfer particulates 
containing HAP.
    For the flushing of fixed lines with solutions containing HAP, the 
proposed standards require that the lines be flushed using a closed 
system as described in Sec. 63.702. As an alternative to using a closed 
system, an owner or operator may flush the line into an open container. 
However, that container must be in an enclosure (such as the type 
surrounding the coater) that is vented to a control device such that 
the overall control is 95 percent.
    The proposed standards would require the owner or operator of an 
existing magnetic tape operation to comply with these standards within 
1 year after they are published in the Federal Register. Section 
63.7(a)(2) of the proposed General Provisions, if promulgated, would 
then allow a source 120 days after the compliance date to demonstrate 
compliance through an initial performance test.\1\ The Administrator 
feels that this timeframe is sufficient for existing sources to comply 
with the regulation. A longer compliance timeframe is not necessary 
because many of the sources in the source category have already 
instituted the control techniques required to meet the proposed 
standards. A shorter timeframe was not selected because the proposed 
timeframe is necessary for those sources that will be required to 
install new capture and/or control devices to purchase and install the 
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\The EPA proposed regulations for subpart A of 40 CFR Part 63 
were published in the Federal Register on August 11, 1993 at 58 FR 
42760. Sources covered by subpart EE will need to comply with 
whatever deadlines for performing the initial performance test are 
contained in subpart A, and all other applicable provisions of 
subpart A, as finally promulgated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Owners or operators of facilities initially determined to be area 
sources that become major sources are subject to the rule under the 
same compliance timeframe as established for existing major sources. 
That is, area sources that become major sources will have to comply 
within one year of becoming a major source.
    Owners or operators of new sources that commence construction after 
the standards are proposed but before the standards are promulgated 
will have to comply immediately upon startup, unless the promulgated 
regulation is more stringent than the proposed regulation. In 
accordance with Section 112(i)(2) of the Act, if the promulgated 
standards are more stringent than the proposed standards, the 
compliance date for sources that commence construction after proposal 
but before promulgation will be 3 years after the promulgation date, 
provided the owner or operator complies with the standards as proposed 
until the compliance date.\2\ The owner or operator would then be 
required to conduct a performance test within 120 days after the 
compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\Section 63.7(a)(2)(ix) of the proposed General Provisions 
implements this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All other new sources will have to comply with the proposed 
standards immediately upon startup.

C. Monitoring Requirements

    Monitoring is required by the proposed standards to determine 
whether a magnetic tape operation is in continuous compliance. 
Depending on the control system, this can be accomplished by: (1) 
Continuously measuring inlet and outlet concentration and showing that 
the control efficiency corresponds to that required by the standard; or
    (2) Continuously measuring site-specific operating parameters, the 
values of which are established by the owner or operator during the 
initial compliance test. The operating parameter value is defined as 
the minimum or maximum value established for a control device or 
process parameter that, if achieved by itself or in combination with 
one or more other operating parameter values, determines that an owner 
or operator is complying with the applicable emission limitation or 
standards. This type of enhanced monitoring would be required for those 
emission points for which the standards are expressed as a percent 
control. For equipment standards, no monitoring would be required. 
However, the owner or operator is expected to install and operate the 
equipment properly (for particulate transfer and flushing fixed lines). 
For owners or operators complying with the proposed standards for wash 
sinks by maintaining a freeboard ratio, compliance would be 
demonstrated through recordkeeping (see section VI.K). A summary of the 
monitoring requirements of the proposed standards is provided in table 
2.

           Table 2.--Proposed Enhanced Monitoring Requirements          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Control device       Parameter(s) to monitor          Deviation      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Carbon adsorber:                                                     
    If used only to  Perform a material balance    Material balance     
     control          (3-day rolling average)       indicates control   
     affected         comparing solvent applied     efficiency is less  
     coating          at the coater to solvent      than stipulated by  
     operation and    recovered.                    NESHAP.             
     solvent is                                                         
     recovered..                                                        
    Multiple beds    Continuous measure of outlet  Monitored outlet     
     on adsorber      total VOC concentration if    concentration is    
     exhaust          compliance is based on        greater than the    
     through a        outlet concentration; or      value established   
     common stack..                                 during the          
                                                    performance test for
                                                    three consecutive   
                                                    adsorption cycles.  
                     Continuous measure of inlet   Efficiency is less   
                      and outlet total VOC          than that stipulated
                      concentration if compliance   by the NESHAP for   
                      is based on control           three consecutive   
                      efficiency.                   adsorption cycles.  
    Adsorber has     Continuous measure of outlet  3-day rolling average
     individual       total VOC concentration if    for an adsorption   
     exhaust stacks   compliance is based on        vessel indicates an 
     for each of      outlet concentration; or      outlet concentration
     multiple beds..                                that is greater than
                                                    the value           
                                                    established during  
                                                    the performance     
                                                    test.               
                     Continuous measure of inlet   3-day rolling average
                      and outlet total VOC          for an adsorption   
                      concentration if compliance   vessel indicates    
                      is based on control           efficiency is less  
                      efficiency.                   than that stipulated
                                                    by the NESHAP.      
2. Condenser:                                                           
    If used only to  Perform a material balance    Material balance     
     control          (3-day rolling average)       indicates control   
     affected         comparing solvent applied     efficiency is less  
     coating          at the coater to solvent      than stipulated by  
     operation and    recovered.                    NESHAP.             
     solvent is                                                         
     recovered..                                                        
    If used to       Continuous measure of the     For any 3-hour       
     control          temperature of condenser      period, the average 
     coating          exhaust stream; or            exhaust temperature 
     operation and                                  is greater than the 
     other emission                                 average exhaust     
     points..                                       temperature         
                                                    established during  
                                                    the performance     
                                                    test.               
                     Continuous measure of inlet   For any 3-hour       
                      and outlet total VOC          period, the average 
                      concentration if compliance   control efficiency  
                      is based on control           is less than that   
                      efficiency.                   stipulated by the   
                                                    NESHAP.             
3. Thermal           Continuous measure of the     For any 3-hour       
 incinerator.         combustion temperature; or    period, the average 
                                                    combusition         
                                                    temperature is less 
                                                    than the average    
                                                    combustion          
                                                    temperature         
                                                    established during  
                                                    the performance     
                                                    test.               
                     Continuous measure of outlet  For any 3-hour       
                      VOC concentration if          period, the average 
                      compliance is based on        outlet VOC          
                      outlet concentration; or      concentration is    
                                                    greater than that   
                                                    required by the     
                                                    standard.           
                     Continuous measure of inlet   For any 3-hour       
                      and outlet total VOC          period, the average 
                      concentration if compliance   control efficiency  
                      is based on control           is less than that   
                      efficiency.                   stipulated by the   
                                                    NESHAP.             
4. Catalytic         Continuous measure of the     For any 3-hour       
 incinerator.         gas temperature both          period, the average 
                      upstream and downstream of    gas temperature     
                      catalyst bed; or              before and after the
                                                    catalyst bed, or the
                                                    average gas         
                                                    temperature         
                                                    difference across   
                                                    the catalyst bed, is
                                                    less than the       
                                                    average temperature 
                                                    established during  
                                                    the performance     
                                                    test.               
                     Continuous measure of outlet  For any 3-hour       
                      VOC concentration if          period, the average 
                      compliance is based on        outlet VOC          
                      outlet concentration.         concentration is    
                                                    greater than that   
                                                    required by the     
                                                    standard.           
                     Continuous measure of inlet   For any 3-hour       
                      and outlet total VOC          period, the average 
                      concentration if compliance   control efficiency  
                      is based on control           is less than that   
                      efficiency.                   stipulated by the   
                                                    NESHAP.             
5. Capture system..  Continuous measure of an      For any 3-hour       
                      indicator parameter (e.g.     period, parameter   
                      differential pressure).       readings are outside
                                                    the value           
                                                    established during  
                                                    the performance     
                                                    test.               
6. All air           Flow diversion: if bypass     Presence of flow     
 pollution control    lines that could divert       detected in the     
 devices.             flow from the control         line, rupture of the
                      device to the atmosphere      car-seal, or removal
                      exist, flow must be           of the lock-and-key 
                      monitored continuously or     must be reported in 
                      the line must be secured      the quarterly       
                      with a car-seal or lock-and-  reporting required  
                      key type configuration that   by Sec. 63,10.      
                      is inspected monthly.         Occurrence does not 
                                                    establish           
                                                    noncompliance.      
7. Steam strippers.  Continuous measure of the     For any 3-hour       
                      steam and wastewater feed     period, the average 
                      rates.                        steam to fee ratio  
                                                    is less than the    
                                                    average value       
                                                    established in the  
                                                    compliance          
                                                    determination.      
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The operating parameter value monitoring system shall complete a 
minimum of one measurement cycle (sampling, analyzing, recording) for 
each successive 15-minute period in accordance with 
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\The EPA proposed regulations for subpart A of 40 CFR Part 63 
on August 11, 1993 at 58 FR 42760. Sources covered by subpart EE 
will need to comply with the provisions of subpart A as finally 
promulgated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Test Methods for Compliance

    The product of the capture efficiency of the system and the 
efficiency of the control device yields the overall efficiency of the 
control system. Sources can demonstrate that the overall HAP control 
efficiency required by the proposed rule is being met by: (1) Measuring 
the capture and control efficiency; or
    (2) Performing a liquid-liquid material balance, if a solvent 
recovery device is used to control the coating operation only.
    The proposed rule allows several ways to calculate the capture 
efficiency. The first way to calculate the capture efficiency is to 
perform a capture efficiency test in accordance with the provisions of 
Sec. 63.705(c) (2) or (3). Another way to demonstrate 100-percent 
capture is to meet the total enclosure criteria of Sec. 63.705(c)(4). 
The capture efficiency associated with using piping or ductwork to 
direct emissions from an affected emission source to a control device 
is 100 percent if the requirements of Sec. 63.705(d)(1)(i) are met.
    To calculate the efficiency of the control device or to measure the 
outlet concentration, the proposed standards allow the use of either 
the EPA Method 25A or the EPA Method 18, both of which are found in 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A. The EPA Method 25A, which measures control 
device efficiency for organic compounds, is the minimum test method 
proposed to demonstrate initial compliance with the proposed standards. 
The EPA Method 18, which can distinguish control efficiencies for 
different species of HAP, is also allowed as an alternative testing 
method.
    In certain instances, a liquid-liquid material balance conducted in 
accordance with Sec. 63.705(c)(1) is proposed to demonstrate ongoing 
compliance with the proposed standards. For a solvent recovery device 
that controls only the coating operation, a liquid material balance is 
performed by continuously measuring solvent applied at the coater. The 
overall HAP control efficiency is then calculated over a 3-day rolling 
averaging period. A rolling average is the overall average of the 
individual averages calculated during a given time period.
    The proposed rule requires that the HAP in the wastewater discharge 
from a wastewater treatment system be treated by: (1) Using a steam 
stripper designed to be 99-percent efficient;
    (2) Using a steam stripper such that the total HAP concentration of 
the water discharged from the steam stripper is less than 50 ppmw; or
    (3) Using an alternate treatment device, approved by the 
Administrator, which removes 99 percent of the HAP or reduces HAP to a 
concentration of less than 50 ppmw. Any alternate treatment device 
should not allow HAP emissions to be merely transferred from the water 
phase to the air phase in any uncontrolled manner. To demonstrate 
compliance with the proposed rule, an owner or operator must provide 
either engineering design calculations that show that the stripper is 
designed to achieve a 99-percent removal efficiency, or sample the 
wastewater discharged from the stripper using the EPA Method 305 to 
show that a total HAP outlet concentration of 50 ppmw is being 
achieved. The EPA Method 305 was proposed to be added to appendix A of 
part 63 on December 31, 1992 (57 FR 62785). The engineering design 
calculations would have to include, at a minimum, the feed rate, steam 
rate, number of theoretical trays, number of actual trays, feed 
composition, bottoms composition, overheads composition, and inlet feed 
temperature. Owners or operators complying with the standards through 
use of an alternate treatment device must identify an appropriate 
compliance test and ongoing compliance monitoring plan, subject to the 
approval of the Administrator.
    If an owner or operator complies with the proposed standards for 
wash sinks by venting the emissions to a control device, an overall HAP 
control efficiency of 88 percent must be determined from the product of 
the control device efficiency and the capture efficiency. Determination 
of the overall HAP control efficiency is not required in situations 
where: (1) The sources are existing sources that have been venting HAP 
emissions from the wash sink to the control device since before March 
11, 1994;
    (2) The system venting HAP emissions from the wash sink to the 
control device is in place before March 11, 1994; and
    (3) The owner or operator continues venting the wash sink emissions 
to the device.
    If the owner or operator is an existing source but discontinues the 
venting of the sink to the control device, a 75-percent freeboard ratio 
must then be maintained.

E. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    The owner or operator of any magnetic tape operation subject to 
these proposed standards would be required to fulfill the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements outlined in Sec. 63.10, except as exempted 
by Sec. 63.701(a)(2) of the proposed rule.4 These proposed 
requirements include those associated with startup, shutdown, or 
malfunctions; operation and maintenance records; compliance monitoring 
system records; performance test reporting; quarterly reports of excess 
emissions; and continuous monitoring system performance reports. The 
quarterly reports must contain the monitored value for the periods 
constituting exceedances, and a description and timing of steps taken 
to address the cause of the exceedances. Owners or operators of 
facilities described in Sec. 63.701(a)(2) are not subject to these 
requirements of part 63, subpart A. However, such affected sources are 
subject to the requirements of Sec. 63.703(g), and must record the 
amount of HAP utilized annually and report that quantity to the 
Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the above-proposed requirements, it is proposed that 
whenever solvent is added to the wash sink, the owner or operator of a 
magnetic tape manufacturing operation that uses wash sinks containing 
HAP to clean removable parts shall calculate and record the freeboard 
ratio of each sink, if maintenance of a freeboard ratio is the chosen 
compliance method. Times during which a freeboard ratio of 75 percent 
or greater is not maintained is a violation of the standards and should 
be noted in the aforementioned quarterly reporting.

II. List of Source Categories

    Section 112 of the amended Act requires that the EPA evaluate and 
control emissions of HAP. The control of HAP is achieved through 
promulgation of emission standards under sections 112(d) and 112(f) and 
work practice and equipment standards under section 112(h) for 
categories of sources that emit HAP. On July 16, 1992, the EPA 
published an initial list of major and area source categories to be 
regulated (57 FR 31576). Included on that list were major sources 
emitting HAP from magnetic tape manufacturing operations. Thus, the 
source categories to be regulated by the proposed standards are 
existing and new major sources emitting HAP from magnetic tape 
manufacturing operations.
    There are a total of 25 facilities that make up the magnetic tape 
source category. For the purposes of estimating environmental, energy, 
cost, and economic impacts, an evaluation was conducted to determine 
which sources would be subject to the proposed rule. Of the 25 
facilities, 14 were determined to meet the major source definition. One 
of these major sources is expected to fall below the solvent usage 
cutoff identified in Sec. 63.701(a)(2) and will therefore only be 
subject to recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The remaining 11 
sources are not expected to be major and, thus, are not expected to be 
regulated by these standards.
    Since 1988, 17 magnetic tape manufacturing facilities have ceased 
operation. However, six new coating lines were constructed; two are 
located at two new plants and the remaining four were added to four 
existing facilities. No new plants are expected to be built over the 
next 5 years, although the trend of adding new lines to existing 
facilities is expected to continue at the same rate. Therefore, six new 
lines are expected to be built over the next 5 years, an approximate 
rate of one per year.

III. Background

    Magnetic tape manufacturing operations have previously been 
regulated by the EPA. The new source performance standards (NSPS) for 
the magnetic tape manufacturing industry were promulgated on October 3, 
1988 (53 FR 38892). The NSPS are national standards that limit volatile 
organic compound (VOC) emissions from the coating operation and the mix 
preparation steps at new magnetic tape manufacturing facilities.
    The NSPS include control requirements for new coating operations 
using greater than or equal to 38 cubic meters (m\3\) (10,000 gallons 
[gal]) of solvent per year and for modified or reconstructed coating 
operations using 370 m\3\ (98,000 gal) of solvent per year. Coating 
operations that are below these solvent usages are subject only to 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    The NSPS require new coating operations to recover or destroy 93 
percent of the VOC content of the solvent applied at the coater. This 
same requirement applies to any modified or reconstructed coating 
operation that was achieving less than 90-percent control when it was 
modified or reconstructed. However, an existing coating operation that 
demonstrates an overall VOC control efficiency greater than or equal to 
90 percent before modification or reconstruction is not required to add 
additional controls but has to maintain an overall control level equal 
to or greater than the previously demonstrated control (up to an 
overall VOC control efficiency of 93 percent).
    The NSPS also require new mix preparation equipment to be covered 
and vented to the 95-percent efficient control device if it is 
constructed concurrently with any control device other than a 
condenser. For other cases, at a minimum, mix preparation equipment has 
to be equipped with a cover meeting particular specifications.
    Under the NSPS, sources can also comply with the rule by using 
coatings that contain a maximum of 0.2 kilograms of VOC per liter of 
coating solids as calculated on a weighted average basis for each 
nominal 1-month period. Since the promulgation of the NSPS, no source 
subject to the rule has complied by meeting this provision of the 
standards.
    As of the date of proposal of the NSPS (January 22, 1986), any new, 
modified, or reconstructed lines in any State are subject to the NSPS. 
As of March 1993, six coating lines are known to be subject to the 
NSPS.
    In addition to the NSPS, several State regulations that apply to 
the magnetic tape manufacturing industry have been developed. Twenty-
eight States limit VOC emissions by requiring that the coatings used 
contain less than 347 grams per liter (g/L) (2.9 pounds per gallon [lb/
gal]) of coating applied, excluding water. This applies to 12 operating 
facilities and was recommended by a 1977 Federal control techniques 
guideline (CTG) for existing stationary sources (``Control of Volatile 
Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources--Volume II: Surface 
Coatings of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty 
Trucks,'' Document No. EPA-450/2-77-008). Based on the average VOC 
content of the coatings used by the magnetic tape industry, this is 
approximately equal to 83-percent control. Two States limit VOC 
emissions by requiring that the coatings used contain less than 359 g/L 
(3.0 lb/gal) of VOC. One facility is located in one of those States and 
is therefore subject to this requirement. Five facilities in California 
are subject to rules that limit the VOC content of their coatings to 
either 120 g/L (1.0 lb/gal) or 264 g/L (2.2 lb/gal) of VOC, depending 
upon local district regulations. All of the above coating limits can 
also be met through the use of add-on controls, which is the method all 
known magnetic tape facilities have chosen for compliance. Finally, 
four facilities are located in ozone attainment areas regulated by the 
national ambient air quality standards and are not subject to 
additional control requirements at this time.
    There has also been some regulation of VOC emissions from cleaning 
activities in the magnetic tape industry. In California, the Bay Area 
Air Quality Management District requires that owners or operators 
maintain a minimum freeboard ratio in their wash sinks or vent wash 
sink emissions to a control device. Four facilities are located in the 
California Bay Area. Illinois requires facilities with VOC emissions 
greater than 110 Mg/yr (100 tons/yr) that are located in nonattainment 
areas to cover vessels during cleaning. However, there are no known 
magnetic tape manufacturing sources with VOC emissions above this level 
located in Illinois.
    In developing today's proposed standards under the Act, the Agency 
used the information gathered through its previous regulatory 
activities, described above, to the greatest extent possible. The 
status of the proposed standards and the basis for selecting the 
regulatory alternatives were presented to the National Air Pollution 
Control Techniques Advisory Committee (NAPCTAC) in November 1992 at a 
meeting attended by industry, State and local regulatory agency 
representatives, and representatives from environmental groups.

IV. Authority for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development

    Section 112 of the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection 
Agency the authority to establish national standards to reduce air 
emissions from sources that emit one or more HAP. Section 112(b) 
contains a list of HAP to be regulated by NESHAP. Section 112(c) 
directs the Agency to use this pollutant list to develop and publish a 
list of source categories for which NESHAP will be developed; this list 
was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). 
The Agency must list all known categories and subcategories of ``major 
sources'' that emit one or more of the listed HAP. A major source is 
defined in section 112(a) as any stationary source or group of 
stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common 
control that emits or has the potential to emit in the aggregate, 
considering controls, 10 tons per year or more of any one HAP or 25 
tons per year or more of any combination of HAP.

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

    The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP emissions from both 
new and existing sources according to the statutory directives set out 
in section 112(d) of the Act. The statute requires the standards to 
reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is 
achievable for new or existing sources. This control level is referred 
to as the ``maximum achievable control technology'' (MACT). The 
selection of MACT must reflect consideration of the cost of achieving 
the emission reduction, any non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements for control levels more stringent than 
the floor (described below).
    The MACT floor is the least stringent level for MACT standards. For 
new sources, the standards for a source category or subcategory ``shall 
not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in 
practice by the best controlled similar source, as determined by the 
Administrator'' (section 112(d)(3)). Existing source standards should 
be no less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by 
the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources for categories 
and subcategories with 30 or more sources or the average emission 
limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources (section 112(d)(3)).

V. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Economic and Cost Impacts

A. Environmental Impacts

    This section will discuss the incremental increase or decrease in 
air pollution, water pollution and solid waste generation that would 
result from implementing the proposed standards. Nationwide impacts are 
provided for existing sources and new sources. The impacts on new 
sources are based on a projected six new lines in the industry that 
would be located at existing plants; no new plants are expected to be 
built. The sizes of the new lines are expected to reflect the sizes of 
existing lines; four are estimated to be large, one to be medium, and 
one to be small. Impacts on new sources are presented on a per-line 
basis in chapter 7 of the BID (see ADDRESSES). The estimated impacts on 
existing and new sources are also summarized in sections VI.C and VI.D 
in comparing the two regulatory alternatives considered for the 
proposed standards.
1. Air Pollution Impacts
    The HAP emissions from most of the emission points can be 
controlled by the use of add-on control equipment such as carbon 
adsorbers, condensers and incinerators. At other emission points, 
equipment standards and work practice standards are proposed to limit 
HAP emissions. Emissions of VOC that are both HAP and non-HAP may be 
controlled in the process of meeting the requirements for HAP removal. 
The quantity of those non-HAP VOC's that will be removed, however, has 
not been quantified. The estimated primary and secondary air pollution 
impacts that would result from implementing each alternative are 
summarized below for new and existing sources.
    a. Primary air pollution impacts. The immediate air pollution 
impacts caused by the proposed standards would be a reduction in the 
emission of solvent HAP by the source category. At baseline conditions 
(i.e., the conditions that exist in the absence of NESHAP), total 
solvent HAP emissions from existing sources are estimated to be 4,060 
Mg/yr (4,470 tons/yr). If the proposed standards were enacted, these 
emissions would drop to approximately 1,980 Mg/yr (2,170 tons/yr). This 
is a total estimated HAP emission reduction of 2,080 Mg/yr (2,300 tons/
yr). The HAP emission reduction could also potentially result in a 
decline in ambient VOC levels, and therefore a reduction in ozone and 
photochemical smog formation. For new sources built over the next 5 
years, the proposed standards are estimated to reduce solvent HAP 
emissions from a baseline level of 368 Mg/yr (405 tons/yr) to a level 
of 227 Mg/yr (250 tons/yr), an incremental reduction of 141 Mg/yr (155 
tons/yr).
    The proposed standards are also estimated to reduce HAP 
particulates from existing sources by 0.27 Mg/yr (0.3 ton/yr), from an 
estimated baseline level of 0.39 Mg/yr (0.43 ton/yr) to a level of 
approximately 0.12 Mg/yr (0.13 ton/yr). At new sources, particulate 
emissions are expected to be reduced by approximately 2 Mg/yr (2.2 ton/
yr), from a baseline level of 2.1 Mg/yr (2.3 ton/yr) to a level of 0.12 
Mg/yr (0.14 ton/yr). The baseline emissions of particulate HAP are 
greater for new sources than for existing sources because of 
assumptions made for new sources. All new sources were assumed to use 
particulate HAP, whereas particulate HAP are not used at all existing 
sources. Also, some existing sources control emissions of particulate 
HAP. Since the NSPS do not require control of particulate HAP, it was 
assumed that new source emissions of particulate HAP would be 
uncontrolled.
    b. Secondary air pollution impacts. Secondary emissions of air 
pollutants result from generation of the energy needed to operate the 
control devices required by the proposed standards. For those 
facilities that currently operate a control device, the energy 
requirements of the proposed standards are incremental, i.e., in 
addition to the current energy expended at a facility. The combustion 
of natural gas in incinerators will result in particulate matter (PM), 
nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. The 
combustion of fuel oil in the boiler used to produce steam for the 
fixed-bed carbon adsorption system will result in PM, NOx, and sulfur 
oxide (SOx) emissions.
    As a result of implementing the proposed standards at existing 
sources, PM emissions are estimated to increase by 1.3 Mg/yr (1.4 tons/
yr), NOx emissions are estimated to increase by 4 Mg/yr (4.4 tons/yr), 
SOx emissions are estimated to increase by 17 Mg/yr (19 tons/yr), and 
CO emissions are estimated to increase by less than 0.01 Mg/yr (0.01 
ton/yr). The magnitude of the secondary pollutants generated by the 
operation of the control devices is expected to be much smaller than 
the magnitude of the HAP emissions being reduced. Under the proposed 
standards, 23 Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) of secondary pollutants are 
anticipated but 2,080 Mg/yr (2,300 tons/yr) of HAP emissions would be 
expected to be reduced. At new sources, 0.4 Mg/yr (0.5 ton/yr) of PM 
emissions, 5.4 Mg/yr (6 ton/yr) of SOx emissions, and 1.3 Mg/yr (1.4 
ton/yr) of NOx emissions are estimated to be generated. Secondary 
pollutants projected for new sources are based on all new sources using 
carbon adsorption as a control technology. As with existing sources, 
secondary impacts are expected to be small compared to primary air 
pollution impacts.
2. Water Pollution Impacts
    The only wastewater stream generated from magnetic tape 
manufacturing operations results when the carbon bed in the carbon 
adsorption system becomes saturated with HAP and is desorbed with 
steam. Once the steam (containing solvent) is condensed and the solvent 
removed from it, the resulting water is discharged to a POTW. (See 
discussion of wastewater treatment systems in section VI.B.) Because 
the proposed standards require that additional HAP air emissions be 
controlled over baseline conditions, more HAP may be processed through 
the wastewater treatment system. Because steam will be used, a greater 
quantity of water is expected to be discharged. It has been estimated 
that at existing sources an additional 5,600,000 L (1,460,000 gal) 
would be discharged under the proposed standards. This wastewater is 
from the three major sources that are known to perform wastewater 
treatment (as defined in the proposed rule) onsite. Assuming a HAP 
content of 50 ppmw in the wastewater, the waterborne HAP discharged 
from this source would be 0.28 Mg/yr (0.31 ton/yr). At new sources, the 
wastewater discharge that would result is estimated to be 1,024,000 L/
yr (271,000 gal/yr). The associated HAP discharged in this wastewater 
is estimated to be 0.05 Mg/yr (0.06 ton/yr).
3. Solid Waste Impacts
    The only solid waste impacts from the add-on control systems come 
from carbon adsorption units. Solid waste impacts resulting from the 
proposed standards are only those impacts that are in addition to the 
solid waste currently generated at a magnetic tape manufacturing 
operation (i.e., incremental over baseline). It is assumed that the 
control of the additional emission points at an affected source that 
has an existing carbon adsorption system would not decrease the life of 
the carbon bed. Thus, there are no incremental solid waste impacts from 
these sources. Solid waste will result from existing sources that 
require new carbon adsorption systems in order to comply with the 
proposed standards. It is estimated that one existing source will add a 
carbon adsorption system to meet the requirements of the proposed 
standards. The annual solid waste impacts of the proposed standards 
that are expected to result from the operation of the new carbon 
adsorption system are estimated to be less than 0.1 Mg/yr (0.1 ton/yr). 
Likewise, for new sources, solid waste impacts will only result from 
the addition of small lines that are installed at a currently 
uncontrolled plant. These impacts are estimated to be less than 0.01 
Mg/yr (0.01 ton/yr). All of these impacts were determined under the 
assumption that carbon beds have an average life of 5 years.

B. Energy Impacts

    The energy impacts from the proposed standards are a result of: (1) 
The additional natural gas required by those facilities currently using 
incineration,
    (2) The fuel necessary to produce the additional steam required by 
existing carbon adsorption systems, and
    (3) The additional electricity requirements associated with control 
device operation as well as the operation of the ventilation fan 
required for controlling particulate HAP emissions.
    Under the proposed standards for existing sources, natural gas 
consumption is estimated to increase by 70 GJ/yr (65  x  106 Btu/
yr), steam consumption is estimated to increase by 20,160 GJ/yr (19,125 
 x  106 Btu/yr), and electricity consumption is estimated to 
increase by 600 GJ/yr (570  x  106 Btu/yr). The total increase in 
energy requirements for existing sources would be 20,830 GJ/yr (19,760 
x  106 Btu/yr). For new sources it is assumed that carbon 
adsorption systems would be used because this is the type of control 
device used predominantly in the industry. The increase in steam 
consumption would be approximately 6,430 GJ/yr (6,100  x  106 Btu/
yr) and the increase in electricity consumption would be approximately 
33 GJ/yr (31  x  106 Btu/yr).

C. Economic Impacts

    The economic impact analysis estimates that only one affected 
source may experience adverse economic impacts. This result should not 
adversely affect the magnetic tape manufacturing industry, the economy, 
competition, or any other economic concerns.
    An analysis was conducted to assess the economic impacts of the 
proposed regulation. Price, output, and employment impacts were 
calculated on a facility-specific basis as well as on an industry-wide 
basis. A worst-case scenario was used to calculate the facility-
specific impacts.
    The analysis calculated price impacts on magnetic tape products 
such as blank recording, audio, and computer media. The facility-
specific impact calculations indicated that in order for each facility 
to recover its control costs fully, a minimum price increase of 
approximately 0 percent would be required of some facilities while a 
maximum price increase of approximately 5 percent would be required of 
the marginal facility. Of the 13 facilities for which impacts were 
calculated, 4 facilities were predicted to be required to increase 
their prices by approximately 1 percent or greater.
    The analysis recognized, however, that some facilities may be able 
to absorb a portion of their increased costs. Therefore, an additional 
analysis was conducted for the 4 facilities expected to experience 
price increases of approximately 1 percent or greater. An examination 
of the regulation's effect on the facilities' net income and capital 
availability revealed that one facility would be significantly 
impacted. This facility has been identified as a small business.
    The economic analysis also examined the proposed regulation's 
impact on industry output and employment. The magnetic tape industry is 
expected to experience a 0.1-percent reduction in output. Assuming a 
one-to-one relationship between output and employment, the industry can 
also be expected to experience a similar reduction in employment.

D. Cost Impacts

    For existing major sources, the proposed standards are estimated to 
result in a total industry-wide capital investment of $2,263,600. This 
cost includes the capital cost of control devices required to achieve 
compliance with the proposed standards. The annual cost associated with 
the proposed standards is $400,120/yr. This cost includes the capital 
cost of control (annualized, assuming a 7-percent interest rate and a 
10-year equipment life), annual compliance costs including initial 
performance tests and ongoing monitoring, and annual reporting and 
recordkeeping costs. The annual control cost is approximately $174,240/
yr, the annual compliance cost is approximately $115,640/yr, and the 
annual reporting and recordkeeping costs are approximately $110,240/yr. 
The associated cost effectiveness of the proposed standards is 
estimated as $190/Mg ($170/ton). For new sources, the costs vary 
depending on whether a carbon adsorber or an incinerator is the control 
device used. With either system, the total capital investment of the 
proposed standards is approximately $500,000. The total annual costs, 
which include all of the items cited above, are estimated to be 
$349,360/yr, with an associated cost effectiveness of $2,470/Mg 
($2,250/ton) if a carbon adsorption system is used. To compare the 
costs of various control devices, the cost analysis was also repeated 
assuming incineration was used at new sources. If an incinerator is 
used, the annual costs are estimated as $270,367 with an associated 
cost effectiveness of $1,910/Mg/yr ($1,740/ton/yr).

VI. Rationale

    This section describes the decisions made by the Administrator to 
select the proposed standards.

A. Selection of Pollutant and Source Category for Control

    In this section, the pollutants and source category selected for 
control by the proposed standards are identified. The potential for 
subcategorization and the solvent usage cutoff established for this 
source category are also discussed. Finally, a discussion of area 
source regulation is presented.
1. Identification of Pollutants and Source Category
    Magnetic tape manufacturing operations are sources of both VOC and 
particulate emissions. The specific pollutants regulated by the 
proposed standards are those VOC's and particulates that are listed as 
HAP in section 112(b) of the amended Act.
    The solvent HAP typically used in the magnetic tape manufacturing 
industry are methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), 
toluene, xylene, and ethyl benzene. These HAP are used predominantly in 
the coating operations. The HAP used for cleaning are most typically 
MEK and toluene. All of these HAP are also VOC's. Other non-HAP 
solvents that are used in magnetic tape operations are tetrahydrofuran, 
cyclohexanone, and acetone. Acetone is used only for those magnetic 
tape manufacturing operations involving a paper substrate. 
Particulates, which are magnetic particles containing iron, chrome, 
and/or cobalt, are also used in this industry. The particulate HAP used 
are those containing cobalt and chromium.
    As discussed earlier, the list of source categories for which 
NESHAP will be developed was published in the Federal Register on July 
16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), and includes major sources performing magnetic 
tape manufacturing operations. Thus, emissions of HAP from new and 
existing major magnetic tape manufacturing operations are being 
regulated by the proposed rulemaking.
    Products that are manufactured as a result of magnetic tape 
manufacturing operations include magnetic products such as audio and 
video tape and computer diskettes, and non-magnetic products such as 
leader tape. Leader tape is the tape at the beginning of an audio or 
video cassette that does not contain magnetic media; it is manufactured 
using the same methods as magnetic tape. Therefore, leader tape 
production is included in the definition of magnetic tape manufacturing 
operations.
    There may also be some facilities in this source category that 
produce multiple products, some that involve magnetic media and some 
that do not. In cases where the nonmagnetic tape products are produced 
using the same pieces of equipment as the magnetic tape products, and 
the manufacture of nonmagnetic products uses HAP such as HAP solvent, 
the Agency is proposing that the pieces of equipment being used for 
both magnetic and non-magnetic products be controlled, regardless of 
which product is being manufactured. The process (and hence emissions 
of HAP) is essentially the same except that no magnetic particles are 
added to the coating mix. The control systems would be in place and 
would be applicable for both products. This regulation, therefore, 
applies to all products produced at magnetic tape production facilities 
(provided HAP are used in the production), regardless of whether 
magnetic particles are added to the coating mix, as long as the same or 
some of the same equipment is used. Equipment that coexists with 
magnetic tape equipment but is never used in magnetic tape 
manufacturing does not need to be controlled even if HAP are emitted.
    At sources where research or laboratory facilities are collocated 
with production lines, the research or laboratory facilities are 
subject to the proposed standards. The close proximity of these lines 
allows control of the research or laboratory facilities by production 
line control devices. The mix of solvents used in research or 
laboratory facilities may differ from those used on production lines, 
and affect operation of the control device. Therefore, the costs to 
control the variety of solvents that would be used in research or 
laboratory facilities were considered in calculating control costs.
    The proposed definition of research or laboratory facility is from 
section 112(c)(7) of the CAA. One of the criteria in the definition is 
that the facility is not engaged in the manufacture of products for 
commercial sale, except in a de minimis manner. The EPA is soliciting 
comments on what the sale of products in a de minimis manner would be 
for the magnetic tape manufacturing industry, including if research 
facilities sell any products.
    The process for manufacturing magnetic and leader tape consists of 
mixing the coating ingredients (magnetic particles for magnetic tape, 
resins and solvents for both types of tape), conditioning the base 
film, applying the coating to the base film
(either a plastic or paper substrate), orienting the magnetic particles 
(magnetic tape), removing the solvents by evaporation in a drying oven, 
and finishing the tape by calendering, rewinding, slitting, testing, 
and packaging. Most of the HAP emissions from magnetic tape 
manufacturing operations result from the coating operation, and to a 
lesser degree from the ancillary activities such as solvent storage, 
mix preparation, transferring solvent through piping, equipment 
cleaning, treatment of solvent-laden waste material, and wastewater 
treatment.
    This source category was evaluated to determine if 
subcategorization was appropriate. The Agency's analysis indicates that 
no subcategorization is necessary. There are no distinct process 
differences within the source category and no distinction between sizes 
of facilities in terms of what controls are technically feasible. Both 
small and large existing sources have implemented the control 
technologies that form the basis for MACT.
2. Criteria for Applicability Determination
    Only major sources are being regulated by the proposed standards. A 
source is considered major if it has the potential to emit, considering 
controls, greater than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) of any one HAP or 22.7 
Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) of multiple HAP. (Area sources were evaluated to 
determine if they should be regulated; see discussion that follows.) 
One way to make the determination of whether a source is an area source 
or a major source is to conduct a facility-wide material balance of 
solvent and particulate HAP used at the plant. Any HAP that is not 
recovered or controlled contributes to the potential HAP emissions from 
a facility. It is important to note that the major source determination 
is based on the total, potential HAP emitted annually inside the 
fenceline of a facility, not just from magnetic tape manufacturing 
operations. Potential emissions are estimated assuming operations occur 
24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
    For this source category, a solvent usage cutoff has also been 
proposed. Major sources that use less than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) of 
any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) of multiple HAP are only subject 
to an annual reporting requirement (Sec. 63.703(g) of the proposed 
regulation), and are not subject to the control provisions of these 
standards or to some provisions of part 63, subpart A. A solvent usage 
cutoff was proposed to mitigate the impacts on some facilities in the 
industry as a result of the definition of potential to emit. The 
``potential to emit'' is defined in part 70 and the proposed General 
Provisions to part 63 (58 FR 42760) as, ``the maximum capacity of a 
stationary source to emit a pollutant under its physical and 
operational design,'' and ``any physical or operational limitation on 
the capacity of the stationary source to emit a pollutant, including 
air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation 
or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, 
shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation or the effect 
it would have on emissions is federally enforceable.''
    For the magnetic tape industry, it is conceivable that a plant 
would be physically and operationally designed to operate 24 hours per 
day, 365 days per year, because coating operations are continuous. This 
is particularly true for those facilities whose primary products are 
magnetic media and whose operations have been reported to operate on a 
more or less continuous basis. Some facilities, however, may produce 
magnetic tape as only one segment of their total manufacturing process. 
For example, one plant is known to produce magnetic tape on a limited 
basis and operate the magnetic tape coating lines for only a few days 
every year, so its actual emissions are much less than 10 tons/yr of 
any one HAP or 25 tons/yr of multiple HAP. It is unlikely that this 
plant would begin producing magnetic tape on a continuous basis. Based 
on potential to emit, however, this facility could be considered a 
major source and therefore be subject to all requirements of the 
proposed standard.
    The cutoff value was selected so that it would not allow any major 
source that actually emits more than 10 tons/yr of any one HAP or 25 
tons/yr of multiple HAP to be exempt from the control requirements. The 
solvent usage cutoff is equal to the major source emissions criteria 
because in the absence of control, almost all of the solvent used by a 
facility would be emitted. Therefore, even if a facility had no 
controls in place, if the solvent usage were below the cutoff, it would 
not be emitting greater than 9.1 Mg/yr of one HAP or 22.5 Mg/yr (25 
tons/yr) of multiple HAP.
    As discussed above, a cutoff established at this level would ensure 
that all major sources are subject to the proposed control 
requirements. However, once an owner or operator is subject to all 
control provisions of the standards by virtue of being a major source 
and exceeding the solvent usage cutoff, the usage cutoff is no longer a 
basis for determining applicability to the control requirements. That 
is, a subsequent reduction in HAP solvent usage alone would not be 
sufficient to allow a source to avoid compliance with the proposed 
controls. The reason for this is that the source would already have the 
controls in place and operational. Therefore, the source should 
continue to operate them according to the rule.
    Based on information currently available to the EPA, only one 
existing facility is a major source that would be exempt from the 
proposed control requirements because its solvent usage is estimated to 
remain below the proposed solvent usage cutoff. This source would still 
be subject to the annual solvent usage reporting and recordkeeping 
requirement required by 63.703(g).
3. Area Source Evaluation
    The Act provides the Administrator with authority to regulate area 
sources. An area source is defined as one that is not a major source. 
In order to list a category of area sources for regulation, the 
Administrator must find that the sources in a category, individually or 
in aggregate, pose a threat of adverse effects to human health or the 
environment, warranting regulation under section 112.
    For the purpose of estimating the number of major sources, the 
Agency examined each source's potential to emit, considering controls. 
Many of the magnetic tape manufacturing operations already have 
emissions controls in place that reduce their emissions to below the 
criteria for major sources. For estimating the number of major sources, 
the Agency assumed that the emission limitations would be federally 
enforceable, and therefore highly controlled sources would not be 
``major'' for the purposes of the magnetic tape manufacturing NESHAP. 
Of the 25 known facilities in this source category, 11 are considered 
to be area sources based on the Agency's estimate of their potential 
HAP emissions. The data available on the area sources were evaluated to 
determine whether regulation of area sources should be proposed.
    Two of the area sources are research or laboratory facilities as 
defined by section 112(c)(7) and as such are not subject to the 
standards. (Research or laboratory facilities collocated with 
production facilities are subject to the standards.) Area source 3 uses 
particulate HAP only; emissions are estimated to be less than 1 pound 
per year. Area source 4 uses a combination of HAP and non-HAP solvent; 
because the quantity of HAP solvents used is less than the quantity of 
non-HAP solvents, total HAP emissions are low, approximately 5 Mg/yr. 
Area source 5 also uses a combination of HAP and non-HAP solvents in 
their magnetic tape operations. At one time Area source 5 was 
considered a major source, but this source has recently implemented 
strict controls on cleaning solvent emissions. Based on the Agency's 
estimate of the reduction in solvent emissions, this source is now 
considered an area source. Area source 6 also uses HAP and non-HAP 
solvents, and most of the solvents used are HAP. However, this 
particular source is highly controlled and is therefore only emitting 
approximately 5 Mg/yr of HAP. Area sources 7 through 11 do not use any 
HAP in magnetic tape operations. Therefore, unless they switch their 
operations to begin using HAP, they are not subject to the standards. 
None of these sources are collocated at major sources. If any of these 
area sources becomes a major source, they would have to notify the 
Agency and will have 1 year from the date on which they became major 
sources to install control devices to conform to the proposed standard.
    As noted above, section 112(c) states that categories of area 
sources emitting HAP may be listed and regulated if the Administrator 
finds the sources, individually or in the aggregate, present a threat 
of adverse effects to human health or the environment (see 57 FR 31576: 
July 16, 1992, for further discussion of this statutory language). To 
determine a threat of adverse effects, the Agency examines available 
data on facilities, emissions, and health and environmental effects of 
the emitted HAP. In this case, the Agency has adequate health data for 
determining whether there is a likely threat of adverse effects to 
humans for area sources emitting toluene and MEK. The Agency conducted 
a screening analysis of sources emitting these chemicals, either alone 
or in combination. Based on this analysis, the Agency does not believe 
there is a threat of adverse effects from the area sources of magnetic 
tape facilities that emit these two chemicals. For the remaining 
emitted HAP, data required to determine the potential for adverse 
effects are inadequate. As such, the Agency is unable to determine 
whether there is a threat of adverse effects from area sources emitting 
any other combination of HAP. The Agency may repeat the analyses of 
these sources in the future, to evaluate the potential for human health 
and environmental effects, if appropriate data become available. Until 
such analyses are conducted, the Agency will not regulate area sources 
in this rule.

B. Selection of Emission Points

    The Agency examined all known HAP emission points associated with 
the manufacturing of magnetic tape for potential control. They are 
described below.
    a. Solvent storage tanks. Small tanks are generally used to store 
the solvent HAP, which may be virgin material, spent solvent from 
cleaning or from off-specification mixes, or solvent from any stage of 
the solvent recovery process. The tanks operate at or slightly above 
atmospheric pressure. A facility typically has from 1 to 12 storage 
tanks, with a total capacity ranging from 757 to 75,700 liters (L) (200 
to 20,000 gallons [gal]). Storage tanks, as discussed in the proposed 
rulemaking, do not refer to tanks that are part of the process (e.g., 
mix preparation equipment). The HAP emissions from storage tanks to the 
air occur through working losses during tank loading or breathing 
losses due to diurnal temperature changes.
    b. Mix preparation equipment and particulate transfer operations. 
The mix preparation usually takes place in a room or rooms separate 
from the coating line. The components of the mix are first blended and 
then transferred to a series of mills to disperse the aggregates of 
magnetic particles without reducing particle size. The mix is 
circulated and filtered in holding tanks to prevent binders from 
curing, metal particles from settling out, and to remove any oversize 
contaminants. The coating mix is pumped to and from the different 
pieces of mix preparation equipment through closed lines. The mix 
preparation equipment to be controlled by the proposed standards 
includes all of the equipment used in preparing the coating mix 
including mixers, holding tanks, and polishing tanks. Mills, which are 
pressurized equipment used for thoroughly dispersing the aggregates of 
magnetic particles without reducing particle size, are not included as 
mix preparation equipment. This is because these pieces of equipment 
are under pressure and, as such, no emissions are expected, nor could 
they be vented to a control device.
    Particulate HAP can either be transferred through closed systems or 
can be manually poured through hatches in the covers of the mix 
preparation equipment. A small amount of particulate HAP is emitted 
while transferring particulate from the bag or storage bin to the mix 
tank.
    c. Coating operation. In the coater, the substrate to be used for 
the magnetic or leader tape passes over a support roll while the 
coating mix is applied. The thickness and amount of coating applied 
vary with the product. During the coating application step, some 
solvent HAP will volatilize. The amount that is emitted depends on 
site-specific variables such as the coating mix composition and the 
type of coater. Immediately following the coater, magnetic tape is 
guided through an orientation field consisting of an electromagnet or 
permanent magnet, which aligns the individual magnetic particles in the 
direction of the intended recording. (Leader tape does not go through 
the orientation process because magnetic particles are not used.) The 
magnetic or leader tape is passed through a drying oven, where the 
remaining solvents in the coating mix evaporate. It is expected that 
any solvents on the coated tape that are going to evaporate will do so 
by this point in the process. Therefore, there is no solvent 
evaporation in subsequent steps. After drying, the finished product may 
be: (1) Calendered to compact the dry coating and to smooth the 
surface;
    (2) Slit to the desired width; and
    (3) Packaged and labelled, either in parts produced in-house or in 
pre-purchased plastic casings.
    d. Cleaning activities. Cleaning is a task performed differently at 
each plant. Some plants may clean equipment between each batch of 
coating, while others may clean only between product changes. Sometimes 
virgin solvent is used once and immediately treated as a waste. At 
other plants, cleaning solvent may be used several times before it is 
considered ``spent.''
    Four basic categories of cleaning activities have been identified 
for this industry: (1) Flushing fixed lines; (2) Cleaning tanks; (3) 
Cleaning fixed exterior surfaces; and (4) Cleaning miscellaneous 
removable parts.
    The flushing of fixed lines involves flushing solvent through fixed 
lines not associated with the cleaning of a tank (e.g., the line from 
the mix preparation equipment to the coater). A fixed line is one that 
is stationary during normal operation but can be removed from its 
original location for cleaning. Emissions can occur if the solvent used 
for cleaning or collected after cleaning has occurred is exposed to the 
air.
    Tank cleaning may be either an open-top or closed-top process. 
Open-top tank cleaning is the practice of cleaning a tank that either 
has no cover or whose cover has been removed. Solvent may be added and 
drained via buckets or pipes. The interior of the tank may be manually 
cleaned with brushes while the solvent is in it. Closed-top tank 
cleaning is the practice of cleaning a tank while using a cover that 
seals the top of the tank. Solvent is added to and drained from the 
tank via pipes. An automated brush inside the tank may scrub the sides 
while the solvent is in the closed tank. Emissions occur when the 
solvent used in the cleaning process is exposed to the air, and in a 
closed system, equipment leak emissions also occur. Based on test data 
from industry, emissions from both types of cleaning processes are 
approximately equal.
    Cleaning fixed exterior surfaces involves cleaning the surface area 
of a fixed piece of equipment with rags or brushes. The solvent that is 
on the rag or brush evaporates to the air. The surfaces to be cleaned 
are typically on the coater. The ventilation system of the enclosure 
around the coater draws these emissions to the outside air.
    Cleaning removable parts involves cleaning parts that have been 
moved from their normal position to a wash tank or sink containing 
solvent. The solvent is volatile and thus evaporates into the air above 
the sink. The sink is usually ventilated; thus emissions are discharged 
to the atmosphere.
    Rags used for miscellaneous cleaning activities will contain some 
residual solvent and will therefore result in air emissions.
    e. Waste handling devices. The two waste handling devices most 
commonly used in the magnetic tape manufacturing industry are pot 
stills and filter dryers. Both are devices in which solvents are 
recovered from waste materials. In the pot still, liquid wastes are 
pumped through closed piping into the pot still and heated to evaporate 
the solvent portion of the waste. The filter dryer is used to treat 
solid wastes such as filters, rags, and brushes, which are manually 
placed in the dryer and heated to evaporate the solvent portion. With 
both the pot still and the filter dryer, the evaporated solvent is 
condensed, and the recovered liquid sent to a storage tank. Air 
emissions may occur through the condenser vent.
    f. Wastewater treatment. At a magnetic tape manufacturing facility, 
the only significant source of wastewater that contains HAP results 
from steam desorption of the carbon adsorption system beds used to 
recover HAP air emissions. After the steam desorbs the carbon adsorber 
bed, the solvent/water mixture is condensed and separated by gravity 
into distinct solvent and water phases.
    The solvent phase is distilled to separate it into its individual 
components. Potential air emissions could result from residual solvents 
in the water phase if it is not further treated prior to discharge to 
the publicly owned treatment works (POTW). At magnetic tape 
manufacturing facilities, the water phase is treated through steam 
stripping to remove residual solvent. The solvent compounds recovered 
through steam stripping are then purified into the individual solvent 
components.
    g. Condenser vents in the solvent recovery area. The solvent 
recovery area is that area in a plant that contains the equipment used 
to: (1) Remove HAP solvent from the air stream; (2) recover the 
solvent; and (3) purify the solvent for reuse in the process. At a 
magnetic tape manufacturing facility, this equipment would include the 
control device (a carbon adsorption system or condenser), the 
wastewater treatment system (in the case of carbon adsorbers), and 
distillation units. Emissions of HAP to the air occur in the solvent 
recovery area from atmospheric condenser vents, including condenser 
vents on the steam stripper distillation columns and condenser vents to 
condense steam from carbon adsorber regeneration. The vent on a 
condenser that is used as a primary air emission control device is not 
considered part of this emission point.
    h. Equipment leaks. In magnetic tape manufacturing operations, 
solvent is pumped through piping and process equipment as it travels to 
or from storage tanks and from the mix preparation equipment to the 
coater. Facilities that perform onsite solvent recovery and wastewater 
treatment will also have process piping and equipment within these 
areas. The volatile HAP will be emitted through leaks from equipment 
such as pumps, compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling 
connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, and flanges or any 
other connecter in VOC service.
    i. Packaging and labeling. This process occurs after the product 
has been coated, rewound, and slit into the desired width (or punched 
into diskettes). Whatever the final form of the product, printed 
materials such as labels, boxes, and inserts are usually part of the 
final package. Most facilities purchase these items preprinted. Two, 
however, are known to print product identification codes on boxes. This 
operation involves HAP solvents (contained in the ink) that volatilize 
as the ink dries.

C. Selection of Basis and Level of the Proposed Standard for Existing 
Sources

1. Selection of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology Floor
    Section 112 requires the Agency to set standards for new and 
existing sources of HAP emissions that represent the maximum degree of 
reduction achievable, taking into consideration the cost of achieving 
such emission reductions, as well as any non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts and energy requirements. As discussed in section 
IV.B., this level of control cannot be less stringent than the MACT 
floor. For existing sources in source categories with less than 30 
sources, such as this one, the MACT floor is the average emission 
limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources in the source 
category.
    The EPA is considering more than one interpretation of the 
statutory language concerning the MACT floor for existing sources. In 
the case of this standard, the EPA does not believe that the legal 
interpretation would make a difference for most of these emissions 
points. However, for particulate transfer operations (discussed later 
in this section and also in section VI.G of this preamble), there is a 
possibility that one of the five best performing sources in fact is 
achieving a lower level of control and, in this case, the 
interpretation of the MACT floor could make a difference. The EPA is 
soliciting comment on the different legal interpretations of the 
statutory language in a separate Federal Register notice, which is a 
reopening of the comment period for the national emission standards for 
hazardous organic air pollutants from the synthetic organic chemical 
manufacturing industry. Persons wishing to comment on the legal 
interpretations should refer to that rulemaking and submit comments to 
docket number A-90-19. However, comments on the MACT floor analysis 
that are specific to magnetic tape manufacturing operations should be 
addressed to docket number A-91-31, as noted in the beginning of this 
notice.
    For this source category, information was gathered on all 25 of the 
known sources in the source category through surveys, site visits, and 
telephone calls. The MACT floor analysis included major sources and 
sources that are not considered major for the purposes of the 
nationwide impacts analysis. These area sources are the same as the 
major sources in every way except that they are highly controlled and 
thus are below the major source emission criteria. If these area 
sources were uncontrolled, they would be considered major sources of 
HAP emissions.
    The MACT floor for this source category was determined on an 
emission point-by-emission-point basis, which corresponds with the 
proposed narrow definition of affected source (see section VI.J of this 
preamble). Another way to establish the MACT floor, not used by the EPA 
in this proposal, would be to identify a mass emission limit or mass 
emission reduction percentage across the whole facility. The EPA does 
not expect that there would be a large difference in the resulting MACT 
floor for this industry if the latter approach were used. The MACT 
floor for each of the emission points is identified below.
    a. Solvent storage tanks. The highest level of control that was 
found for storage tanks in this source category involved a closed vent 
system, i.e., a system including piping, ductwork, etc., that is not 
open to the atmosphere and that transports vapor to a control device. 
The overall HAP control efficiency of this practice is 95 percent and 
is the average level of control achieved by the five best performing 
magnetic tape manufacturing operations in the source category. Thus, 
the MACT floor for the storage tanks emission point is an overall HAP 
control efficiency of 95 percent.
    b. Mix preparation equipment. The highest level of control for 
emissions from mix preparation equipment that was found in this source 
category was to cover the equipment and vent the emissions to a control 
device. Of the five best performing sources in this source category, 
one achieves a control level of 98 percent. The others achieve a 
control level of 95 percent. The average control level achieved by the 
best performing five sources in this source category, therefore, is 
approximately 96 percent. This control level does not correspond to any 
particular control technique. Therefore, the MACT floor is based 
instead on the median control level achieved by the five best 
performing sources. This level is 95 percent; thus, the MACT floor is 
an overall HAP control efficiency of 95 percent.
    Particulate emissions may also result from coating mix preparation. 
The MACT floor control level for this emission point is discussed in 
subsection e, below.
    c. Coating operation. The coating application and drying emission 
points, collectively referred to as the coating operation, include 
emissions that result from applying the coating mix at the coater and 
drying the coated tape in the oven. The coating operation also includes 
all equipment between the coater and the dryer.
    The highest level of control that is used in this source category 
to limit HAP emissions from coating operations is to vent emissions 
through an enclosure to a control device. Existing sources in this 
source category vent emissions through a total enclosure, thereby 
capturing 100 percent of the emissions. The emissions are directed to a 
control device. Of the five best performing sources in this source 
category, one vents the emissions from the total enclosure to an 
incinerator, achieving an overall HAP control efficiency of 98 percent. 
The remaining four best performing sources vent the emissions from 
their total enclosure to a control device that is 95-percent efficient, 
achieving an overall HAP control efficiency of 95 percent. Thus, the 
average control level achieved by the five best performing sources in 
the source category is approximately 96 percent. Because this does not 
correspond to any particular control technique, the median control 
level of the five best performing sources (i.e., a 95-percent overall 
HAP control efficiency) is the basis for the MACT floor. Thus, the MACT 
floor for coating operations is an overall HAP control efficiency of 95 
percent.
    d. Waste handling devices. Both types of waste handling devices 
(pot stills and filter dryers) used in this industry are equipped with 
condensers to recover the solvent. The highest level of control for the 
condenser vent that was found in this source category is venting 
emissions from it to a control device. The overall HAP control 
efficiency of this practice is 95 percent and is the average level of 
control achieved by the five best performing waste handling devices. 
Therefore, the MACT floor level of control is capture and control of 95 
percent of HAP emissions.
    e. Particulate transfer operations. To control particulate 
emissions during mix preparation (when solid materials are transferred 
into the mix preparation equipment), owners or operators in this source 
category use an enclosed transfer device for transferring particulates 
into the mix preparation equipment. An enclosed transfer device is a 
system in which particulate HAP are conveyed from the storage bin to 
the mix preparation equipment using equipment that completely contains 
the transferred material, so that particulate HAP do not enter the 
atmosphere as dust. The types of enclosed transfer devices currently 
used in magnetic tape manufacturing facilities include vacuum injection 
systems and bag slitter devices. The vacuum injection system draws 
particulate from a storage container into an enclosed hopper. The 
hopper uses gravity to feed a conveyer, which is also enclosed and 
which carries the material to the mix preparation equipment. With a bag 
slitting device, the bag of particulate raw material is placed into a 
hopper, the hopper is closed, and an internal mechanism slits the bag 
to release the particulate into an enclosed conveyer that feeds the mix 
preparation equipment. Alternatively, the hopper may be located above 
the mix preparation equipment and feed it directly.
    Of the five best performing sources in this source category 
controlling particulate emissions, four use enclosed transfer devices. 
The average control level achieved by the five best performing sources 
in the source category is the arithmetic average of the control 
efficiency of the four enclosed transfer devices and the one without an 
enclosed transfer device. Although the control efficiency associated 
with an enclosed transfer device has not been quantified, the average 
control level of the five best performing sources would not be 
equivalent to any particular control technique. Therefore, the basis 
for the MACT floor is the median level of control achieved by the best 
performing five sources. The median level of control corresponds to the 
use of an enclosed transfer device. Thus, the MACT floor is the use of 
an enclosed transfer device for transferring HAP-containing 
particulates.
    f. Wash sinks for cleaning removable parts. Two methods of control 
were found in the industry to control HAP emissions from wash sinks. 
Both methods were considered to be equivalent by controlling HAP 
emissions by approximately 88 percent. These methods were also the 
highest level of control achieved in the source category. One control 
technology involved venting the wash sink emissions through a hood 
(capture device) to a control device that is 95-percent efficient. The 
overall control efficiency is less than 95 percent because the capture 
efficiency is less than 100 percent. The second control technique 
involves maintaining a 75-percent freeboard ratio. A freeboard ratio is 
defined as the vertical distance from the liquid surface to the top of 
the wash sink divided by the smaller of the length or width of the sink 
evaporative area. Maintaining a freeboard ratio limits solvent HAP 
emissions because the solvent level in the sink is lower and solvent 
vapors remain in the sink; they do not rise to the air above the sink. 
When a freeboard ratio is maintained, the wash sink should not be 
ventilated as this will draw the solvent vapors from the sink to the 
air above it. An overall HAP control efficiency of approximately 88 
percent is the average level of control achieved by the five best 
performing sources in the source category, achieved either by venting 
emissions from wash sinks to the control device or by maintaining a 
freeboard ratio. Thus, the MACT floor is an overall HAP control 
efficiency of 88 percent.
    g. Cleaning involving the flushing of fixed lines. Five sources in 
this source category flush the line between the coating operation and 
the mix preparation equipment with solvent to remove any hardened 
debris that may have collected. Three of the facilities use a closed 
system, which has been determined to have negligible emissions. In a 
closed system for flushing fixed lines, the empty line to be cleaned is 
disconnected from its original location and connected to two other 
containers. One is a closed container with cleaning solvent and the 
other is a closed container that is empty. Solvent is flushed from the 
container with cleaning solvent, through the line, and into the empty 
container. The only solvent emissions are from vents located on the 
containers. The two other major sources that perform this cleaning 
operation flush the solvent through the line into an open container. 
However, the container is in the total enclosure surrounding the 
coater, which is vented to a control device capable of removing 95 
percent of the VOC emissions. Emissions from these control systems have 
not been quantified. However, emissions are thought to be very low, 
regardless of which system is used. The average level of control 
achieved by these five best performing sources is equal, achieved 
either through a closed system or by venting emissions from an 
enclosure (such as the one surrounding the coater) to the control 
device. Thus, either of these control methods is the MACT floor.
    h. Wastewater treatment systems. Facilities that use steam to 
desorb the carbon beds of the carbon adsorption systems used for air 
pollution control generate significant quantities of wastewater (5 to 
10 million gallons per year). All three of the facilities using steam 
to desorb the carbon adsorber beds use a steam stripper to remove HAP 
compounds from the wastewater discharge. The wastewater is typically 
preheated to its saturation temperature prior to being fed into the 
stripping column. Upon contact with the steam, the volatile components 
are transferred to the steam, and the steam/solvent mixture is removed 
from the top of the column and cooled in a condenser. The resulting 
water/solvent mixture is collected in a decanter; the solvent is sent 
to distillation for purification, and the water is returned back to the 
column. Clean water exits the bottom of the column. In this industry, a 
total HAP outlet concentration of less than 50 ppmw in the outlet of 
the stripper can be expected. Inlet concentrations to the column are 
typically in the 2- to 5-percent range. Given these inlet and outlet 
concentrations and the fact that the quantity of water entering and 
exiting the column is equal, the removal efficiency is greater than 99 
percent. The extent to which a compound is removed via steam stripping 
is a direct function of its volatility. The HAP that are present in the 
wastewater from magnetic tape facilities (MEK, MIBK, toluene) are very 
volatile and thus highly strippable. In a properly-operated steam 
stripper, 99 percent of these HAP compounds can be removed, with a 
typical HAP concentration in the outlet from the steam stripper of less 
than 50 ppmw. This is the highest level of control achievable and is in 
practice at all three plants in the source category that perform this 
operation (no other sources have this emission point). Therefore, the 
MACT floor for this emission point is the use of a control device such 
as a steam stripper that reduces the HAP content of the wastewater from 
the separator by 99 percent prior to discharge to the POTW, or that 
results in a total HAP concentration of less than 50 ppmw in the 
wastewater discharge.
    i. Condenser vents in the solvent recovery area. The condenser 
vents in the solvent recovery area emit HAP to the atmosphere. One way 
to control these emissions is to duct the emissions to the main control 
device. The overall HAP control efficiency of this practice is 95 
percent and is the average control level achieved by the five best 
performing sources in the source category. Thus, the MACT floor for 
this emission point is an overall HAP control efficiency of 95 percent.
    j. Equipment leaks. In any magnetic tape manufacturing operation 
there is equipment such as valves, flanges, pumps, and pressure relief 
valves that are a source of HAP emissions. (See discussion of equipment 
leak emissions in Section VI.B.) None of the major sources in this 
source category control emissions from equipment leaks. Therefore, the 
MACT floor is represented by a no-control level.
    k. Exterior surface cleaning, tank cleaning, and packaging and 
labeling. The Agency also evaluated other emission points that were 
considered to contribute to HAP emissions from a facility. These other 
emission points are packaging and labeling operations, tank cleaning, 
and the cleaning of fixed exterior surfaces. Packaging and labeling 
involves the printing of product identification codes on boxes. Tank 
cleaning involves cleaning the inside of the coating mix tanks with 
solvents, and sometimes involves scrubbing the tank. Spent solvent is 
discharged to a waste holding container. Cleaning fixed exterior 
surfaces usually involves wetting a rag with solvent and wiping the 
item to be cleaned. All of the solvent used evaporates.
    These emission points were evaluated by the Agency to determine 
their emission potential and possible control strategies. Industry-wide 
HAP emissions from packaging and labeling were estimated as 3.4 Mg/yr 
(3.7 tons/yr), those from tank cleaning were estimated as 140 Mg/yr 
(154 tons/yr), and those from exterior surface cleaning were estimated 
as 95 Mg/yr (104 tons/yr). No sources in the source category that 
perform these operations are controlling their emissions. Thus, the 
MACT floor is represented by a no-control level.
    l. Use of non-HAP solvents. Some solvents used by the area sources 
in this source category are currently not listed as HAP under section 
112(b), and as such are not regulated under this standard. These 
solvents include tetrahydrofuran, cyclohexanone, and acetone. Acetone 
is used for those magnetic tape manufacturing operations that involve 
coating a magnetic strip on a paper substrate, and is not suitable for 
coating that involves a plastic substrate. Currently, the Agency is 
developing a methodology to assess whether non-listed chemicals should 
be considered for addition to the list of hazardous air pollutants. 
Tetrahydrofuran, cyclohexanone, and acetone may become candidates for 
this process. Therefore, the Agency is not requiring that sources 
switch operations so that these non-HAP solvents are used. However, as 
the compounds are not currently listed in section 112(b), sources using 
and emitting these compounds and not emitting HAP compounds at a major 
source level are not subject to the proposed standards.
    The proposed standards also do not preclude the use of water-based 
coatings. No existing sources are known to use water-based coatings. 
Therefore, they were not considered in setting the MACT floor. There 
does not appear to be a strong interest in their use in the magnetic 
tape manufacturing industry. Industry representatives have indicated 
that changing solvent formulation would likely involve changing most of 
the other coating components and the coating equipment. This would 
require extensive research and development, which could take years. 
Furthermore, given the fact that little work has been done in 
formulating water-based coatings for use in magnetic tape manufacturing 
operations, it is unlikely that water-based coatings would be 
sufficient to comply with either the proposed standard or the NSPS for 
this industry. (See related discussion on the selection of the format 
of the standards in section VI.F.)
2. Regulatory Alternatives Considered
    When determining the MACT floor for the affected source, the Agency 
evaluates more stringent regulatory alternatives that may be feasible. 
For this source category, two regulatory alternatives have been 
evaluated. These are summarized in table 3. The first alternative is 
the MACT floor, as discussed above. The additional requirements of 
regulatory alternative II (RA II) include the implementation of a leak 
detection and repair program to control equipment leaks and a work 
practice requirement for cleaning activities.

                                                                                                   Table 3.--Regulatory Alternatives                                                                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          HAP emission points                                                                                                           
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                              Cleaning activities                                       
  Reg                          Mix preparation                                                                                                           ------------------------------------------------------------                   
 alt.      Storage tanks          equipment        Coating operation      Waste handling        Wastewater         Condenser vents       Piping leaks                                              Flushing of fixed     Particulates   
                                                                                                                                                             Housekeeping       Removable parts          lines                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.....  95 percent HAP       95 percent HAP       95 percent HAP       95 percent HAP       99 percent HAP       95 percent HAP       No control........  None..............  75% freeboard       Closed system or    Enclosed transfer 
         removed.             removed.             removed.             removed.             removal or 50 ppmw   removed.                                                     ratio.              vent to control.    of particulates. 
                                                                                             HAP outlet                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                             concentration.                                                                                                                             
II....  95 percent HAP       95 percent HAP       95 percent HAP       95 percent HAP       99 percent HAP       95 percent HAP       LDAR program......  Use closed          75% freeboard       Closed system or    Enclosed transfer 
         removed.             removed.             removed.             removed.             removal or 50 ppmw   removed.                                 containers for      ratio.              vent to control.    of particulates. 
                                                                                             HAP outlet                                                    collecting and                                                               
                                                                                             concentration.                                                dispensing                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                           cleaning solvent.                                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The LDAR program evaluated for this source category actually 
involves both equipment modification and routine inspection and 
monitoring. The equipment found in this source category that would be 
subject to such a program includes valves, pumps, connectors, pressure 
relief devices, open-ended lines, and sampling connection systems. The 
program evaluated for these standards is analogous to the one required 
by the negotiated regulations proposed in subpart H of the hazardous 
organic NESHAP (see 57 FR 62628). Under this program, leaks from open-
ended lines, sample connections, and pressure relief valves are 
eliminated through certain equipment modifications. Emission reductions 
for pumps, connectors, and valves are achieved through the LDAR program 
that involves monthly, annual, and quarterly inspections, respectively. 
During the inspections, a portable hydrocarbon detection device is used 
to determine whether the fitting is leaking. A leak is defined 
differently for each piece of equipment, ranging from 500 to 10,000 
ppmv hydrocarbon. The program allows for reduced monitoring frequency 
if certain criteria are met. If a leak occurs, the fitting must be 
repaired or replaced. Although the LDAR program is not being used in 
the magnetic tape industry, the Agency considered it technically 
feasible for controlling equipment leak emissions from magnetic tape 
operations. The LDAR program is used in chemical manufacturing 
facilities, and the same types of fittings that are present in those 
facilities are present in magnetic tape operations.
    The other control technique that is included in RA II is an 
equipment standard to control emissions from general cleaning 
activities. This work practice would require that closed containers be 
used for dispensing and collecting cleaning solvent. This would prevent 
solvent emissions from open containers of cleaning solvent that are 
associated with cleaning operations. Some facilities in the magnetic 
tape source category have reported using closed containers for 
dispensing cleaning solvent. Information on the specific 
characteristics of the containers was not reported, but one type of 
container that is available is a spring-loaded can that delivers 
solvent to a mesh surface at the top of the can only when a rag is 
pressed to the mesh. Although some solvent emission reduction would be 
expected from using these containers, the control level achieved by the 
median of the five best performing sources is zero. Thus, this control 
technique cannot be included as a MACT floor level control technique. 
It is, however, considered with RA II as a control technique that is 
more stringent than the floor.
    As discussed in the selection of the MACT floor for existing 
sources, there are sources in the industry that capture coating 
operation emissions in a total enclosure and vent the emissions to an 
incinerator. If the total enclosure meets the Agency's criteria and the 
incinerator is properly operated, an overall efficiency of 98 percent 
may be achieved. (One source that was subject to the NSPS for this 
industry and operates an incinerator is estimated to achieve a 98-
percent control level.) The Agency considered whether to include a 98-
percent control requirement based on incineration as a regulatory 
alternative more stringent than the MACT floor. Such an alternative may 
eliminate the carbon adsorption systems and condensers currently being 
used to control and recover the solvent for reuse in the coating 
operation, because these systems may not be able to routinely achieve a 
98-percent control efficiency. Solvent recovery is an in-process 
recycling operation which, although not pollution prevention, is very 
desirable (see discussion of pollution prevention in section VI.E.). 
The reuse of the solvent by the industry results in a lower overall 
consumption of solvent. In turn, the negative impacts from the 
production of solvent are reduced. Therefore, there are both 
environmental and cost benefits of solvent recovery. For these reasons, 
the Agency decided not to include thermal incinerators as a separate 
regulatory alternative for the magnetic tape manufacturing industry. 
The Agency is interested in receiving comments on this proposed 
approach.
    There are other emission points at magnetic tape manufacturing 
facilities that were evaluated for possible control strategies beyond 
the floor. These points include packaging and labeling, cleaning of 
tanks, and cleaning of fixed exterior surfaces. The packaging and 
labeling emission point was evaluated to determine if non-HAP solvents 
could be used. Solvent substitution was considered the only technically 
feasible control technique to reduce HAP emissions from packaging and 
labeling. However, after conversations with vendors who supply the inks 
to industry, it was concluded that no non-HAP solvents were available. 
Given the low HAP emissions from this emission point (3.4 Mg/yr total 
from two sources) and the absence of any control options, it has not 
been included for control in RA II.
    Several control strategies were evaluated for controlling emissions 
from the cleaning of tanks and fixed exterior surfaces. The first 
strategy evaluated involved installing a total enclosure around the 
emission source and directing emissions from the enclosure to the 
existing add-on control device. This strategy was determined not to be 
technically feasible because the high volume, low concentration streams 
cannot be controlled by adding them to the other solvent-laden air that 
is being controlled by the existing control device. A second strategy 
that was evaluated involved using separate control devices particularly 
suited for high volume, low concentration streams for controlling these 
emission points. The Agency's analysis indicated that the cost 
effectiveness of such an option would be very high, exceeding $14,500/
Mg HAP ($13,100/ton HAP) for tank cleaning. The cost effectiveness for 
controlling emissions from fixed exterior surface cleaning has not been 
quantified. However, it would be even higher than tank cleaning because 
the capital cost of control is comparable to that for tank cleaning and 
the emission reduction is even lower. (The estimate of nationwide HAP 
emissions from tank cleaning is 140 Mg/yr; for exterior surfaces it is 
95 Mg/yr.) Finally, the use of other cleaning agents was evaluated as a 
potential control strategy. Non-HAP solvents were also determined not 
to be technically feasible in all cases because the cleaning solvent 
used for these emission points must be compatible with the solvents in 
the coating mix. Also, as was discussed in section VI.C.1., the 
substitution of the non-HAP solvents common to this industry is not 
being encouraged because of the lack of data on their toxicity. The use 
of soap and water was examined but was not able to clean adequately in 
most cases. There is research under way that examines the use of high 
pressure water to clean vessels in other industries, like the 
pharmaceutical industry. There is also ongoing research to examine new 
construction materials for vessels to make them easier to clean. 
Although these may lead to improvements in the future, this research 
was too preliminary to include in a regulatory alternative for the 
magnetic tape industry. Thus, after evaluating potential control 
strategies for tank cleaning and cleaning of fixed exterior surfaces, 
the Agency did not include in RA II any alternative beyond the general 
cleaning work practice described in the beginning of this section.
    The Agency is currently developing a document describing 
alternative control techniques (ACT) for controlling VOC emissions from 
solvent used for cleaning operations. Some of these control techniques 
may be appropriate for controlling HAP emissions. One of the techniques 
evaluated in the ACT requires that a source develop a solvent 
accounting system that tracks the usage and disposal of cleaning 
solvent throughout a manufacturing facility. A program to test 
alternative cleaning solvents may also be implemented. The results of 
the ACT are not yet finalized and therefore have not been fully 
evaluated in terms of their applicability to this source category. 
State and local regulatory agencies that are interested in using this 
system to control emissions from cleaning should notify the Agency to 
keep apprised of the status of the ACT study.
3. Impacts of the Regulatory Alternatives
    For each of the regulatory alternatives, environmental, energy, 
cost, and economic impacts were estimated. The impacts associated with 
RA I were presented in Section V. These impacts and the impacts 
associated with RA II are summarized in table 4. The source of the 
environmental, energy, cost, and economic impacts were also discussed 
in section V. Therefore, the same discussion is not repeated here, but 
impacts are briefly summarized.

                      Table 4.--Environmental, Energy and Cost Impacts of the Two Regulatory Alternatives on Existing Major Sources                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Reduction     Secondary air pollution emissions, Mg/yr (ton/yr)                                
                                                             in     -------------------------------------------------------                             
                                        Reduction in    particulate                                                           Incremental    Incremental
                                         solvent HAP        HAP                                                               solvent HAP    solid waste
             Reg. Alt.a               emissions in air   emissions                                                           emissions in     generated 
                                       from baseline,   in air from       PM            NOx            CO           SOx       wastewater        over    
                                       Mg/yr (ton/yr)    baseline,                                                          over baseline,  baseline, Mg/
                                                        Mg/yr (ton/                                                         Mg/yr (ton/yr)   yr (ton/yr)
                                                            yr)                                                                                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...................................     2,080 (2,300)   0.27 (0.3)     1.3 (1.4)     4.1 (4.4)    <0.01 (0.01)    17 (19)     0.28 (0.31)    <0.1 (0.1)
II..................................     2,470 (2,720)   0.27 (0.3)     1.3 (1.4)     4.1 (4.4)    <0.01 (0.01)    17 (19)     0.28 (0.31)    <0.1 (0.1)
Difference between RA I and RA II...         380 (420)   0              0             0             0                    0     0               0        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                                                                                        
                                 Incremental energy impacts over baseline, GJ/yr(10\6\              Incremental cost impacts over baseline, $           
                                                        Btu/yr)                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                -------------------------------------------------------                                           Annual                
           Reg. Alt.a                                                                      Total        Annual      Annual    reporting and     Total   
                                  Natural     Steam    Electricity         Total          capital      control    compliance  recordkeeping     annual  
                                    gas                                                  investment     costs        costs        costs         costs   
I..............................    70 (65)     20,160                                                                                                   
                                             (19,125)    600 (570)     20,830 (19,760)    2,263,640      174,240     115,640      110,240        400,120
II.............................    70 (65)     20,160                                                                                                   
                                             (19,125)    600 (570)     20,830 (19,760)    2,268,440    2,528,910     115,640      110,240      2,754,790
Difference between RA I and RA                                                                                                                          
 II............................          0          0            0                   0        4,800    2,354,670           0            0      2,354,670
aFor a description of the regulatory alternatives, refer to Table 3.                                                                                    

    a. Environmental impacts. In regard to primary air pollution 
impacts, RA II would reduce solvent HAP emissions from existing major 
sources by approximately 2,470 Mg/yr (2,720 tons/yr), which is an 
additional decrease of 380 Mg/yr (420 tons/yr) over RA I. The 
particulate HAP emission reduction for RA II is the same as it is for 
RA I because RA I requires the use of the most stringent particulate 
HAP control techniques available.
    There are no additional secondary pollutant emissions for RA II 
because the additional requirements have little or no energy impacts. 
The LDAR program requires monitoring of pipe fitting emissions using an 
electronic device. The use of closed containers is a work practice that 
will only require the purchase of suitable containers. Likewise, there 
are no additional wastewater discharges associated with RA II as 
compared to RA I because there are none associated either with the LDAR 
program or with the use of closed containers for dispensing and 
collecting cleaning solvent. No incremental solid waste impacts are 
associated with RA II.
    b. Energy impacts. The energy impacts associated with RA I and RA 
II are also presented in table 4. There are no additional energy 
requirements associated with RA II as compared to RA I. The electricity 
requirements of the electronic monitoring device required for an LDAR 
program are considered negligible.
    c. Cost impacts. The costs associated with RA I and RA II are 
presented in table 4. The total annual cost of RA II is estimated to be 
$2,754,790/yr, which includes the total annual control cost, the total 
annual compliance cost, and the annual reporting and recordkeeping 
cost. These two latter costs are the same as for RA I because the 
compliance, reporting, and recordkeeping associated with an LDAR 
program is incorporated into the LDAR annual cost. The industry-wide 
cost effectiveness of RA II is approximately $1,120/Mg ($1,010/ton 
HAP). The incremental cost effectiveness of RA II compared to RA I is 
$6,100/Mg ($5,540/ton).
    d. Economic impacts. An analysis was conducted to assess the 
economic impacts associated with RA I and RA II. Price, output, and 
employment impacts were evaluated on a facility-specific basis as well 
as on an industry-wide basis. A worst-case scenario was used to 
calculate the facility-specific impacts.
    For RA I, the facility-specific impact calculations indicated that 
in order for each facility to recover its control costs fully, a 
minimum price increase of 0 percent would be required of some 
facilities while a maximum price increase of approximately 5 percent 
would be required of the marginal facility. Of the 13 facilities for 
which impacts were calculated, 4 facilities were predicted to be 
required to increase their prices by approximately 1 percent or 
greater.
    However, the analysis recognized that some facilities may be able 
to absorb a portion of their increased costs. Therefore, an additional 
analysis was conducted for the 4 facilities expected to experience 
price increases of approximately 1 percent or greater. An examination 
of the regulation's effect on the facilities' net earnings and capital 
availability indicated that one facility would be significantly 
impacted. This facility has been identified as a small business.
    The impact that RA I would have on industry output and employment 
is expected to be small. The magnetic tape industry is expected to 
experience a reduction in output of approximately 0.1 percent. Assuming 
a one-to-one relationship between output and employment, the industry 
can also be expected to experience a similar reduction in employment.
    For RA II, the facility-specific impact calculations indicated that 
in order for each facility to recover its control costs fully, a 
minimum price increase of approximately 0 percent would be required of 
some facilities while a maximum price increase of approximately 6 
percent would be required of the marginal facility. Of the 13 
facilities for which impacts were calculated, 4 facilities were 
predicted to be required to increase their prices by approximately 1 
percent or greater. An additional analysis of RA II's impact on these 
facilities' earnings, net income, and capital availability indicated 
that these 4 facilities would be significantly impacted.
    The economic analysis also examined the effect of RA II on industry 
output and employment. The industry is expected to experience a 0.7-
percent reduction in output as a result of implementing RA II. Since a 
one-to-one relationship between output and employment is assumed, the 
industry is also expected to experience a similar reduction in 
employment.
    The results of the economic impact analysis indicate that 
implementation of the proposed NESHAP should not adversely affect the 
magnetic tape manufacturing industry, the economy, competition, or any 
other economic concerns.
4. Selection of MACT
    The Administrator is proposing that MACT for existing magnetic tape 
operations be set at RA I, the MACT floor. In deciding whether to 
require RA II, which is more stringent than the floor, the additional 
environmental, energy, cost, and economic impacts must be evaluated. 
These impacts are presented in section VI.C.3.
    There are no additional secondary pollutant, wastewater, solid 
waste, or energy impacts associated with RA II that would prevent the 
Administrator from choosing this alternative over RA I. The 
implementation of RA II would result in an additional HAP emission 
reduction of approximately 385 Mg/yr (420 tons/yr). The additional 
annual cost associated with this emission reduction is estimated as 
$2,754,796/yr. Thus, the incremental cost effectiveness between RA I 
and RA II is $6,100/Mg ($5,540/ton). The Administrator is proposing 
that the costs associated with implementing RA II at magnetic tape 
operations are unreasonable compared to the incremental emission 
reductions that result. The primary source of emissions at a magnetic 
tape manufacturing operation is associated with the coating operation, 
and this emission point will be highly controlled by RA I. In fact, at 
baseline conditions, industry-wide equipment leak emissions represent 
10 percent of total HAP emissions, compared to 45 percent associated 
with the coating operation, 19 percent associated with mix preparation, 
and 17 percent associated with cleaning activities. The Administrator, 
therefore, is proposing RA I as the basis of the standards for existing 
sources.

D. Selection of Basis and Level of the Proposed Standard for New 
Sources

1. Selection of the MACT Floor and Regulatory Alternatives
    The MACT floor for new sources is based on the emission control 
that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. The 
MACT floor for new sources is therefore the same as the MACT floor for 
existing sources for each of the emission points because, as explained 
in the previous section, these control technologies were the highest 
level of control found in the magnetic tape industry. Likewise, the 
same regulatory alternatives that were evaluated for existing sources 
were evaluated for new sources.
    One existing source in the industry is known to capture coating 
operation emissions in a total enclosure and vent the emissions to an 
incinerator. However, for the same reasons cited in section VI.C.2. in 
the discussion of the regulatory alternatives considered for existing 
sources, the Agency is not proposing incineration over solvent recovery 
techniques as the basis for the MACT floor for new sources.
2. Impacts of the Regulatory Alternatives
    Model magnetic tape operations (model lines) were created to 
estimate the impacts of the regulatory alternatives on new sources. The 
term model line is being used to describe a new or modified plant with 
one coating line, or an existing plant that adds a new coating line. As 
discussed in section II, the latter case is the one that is likely to 
occur in this industry; new plants are not expected. Further, existing 
plants are expected to expand capacity by adding only one coating line 
at a time. A coating line by necessity has other operations such as 
mixing, solvent storage, and cleaning associated with it. Therefore, 
the ``model lines'' defined for this analysis include not only the 
coating operation, but the ancillary operations such as mix preparation 
equipment, storage tanks, waste handling devices (at larger 
facilities), particulate transfer operations, and cleaning activities. 
A summary of the emission points associated with model lines is 
provided in Table 5. The logic is that if a coater and drying oven 
(i.e., a line) were installed at a new plant or added to an existing 
facility, all of the ancillary equipment would be required. For 
example, at an existing plant, additional storage capacity or mix 
preparation equipment may be required. This is a conservative 
assumption, but one that estimates worst-case emission impacts.
    Five model lines representing three sizes--small, medium, and 
large--have been selected to characterize new or modified sources in 
the industry. A small model line uses less than 23.5 Mg/yr (26 tons/yr) 
of HAP to make applied coatings. (Applied coatings are those magnetic 
coatings that are eventually applied to the base substrate at the 
coater.) A medium model line uses an average of 64 Mg/yr (71 tons/yr) 
of HAP to make applied coatings. A large model line uses an average of 
641 Mg/yr (705 tons/yr) of HAP to make applied coatings.
    The five model lines are further described as: (1) A small model 
line (ML-1);
    (2) A medium model line built without concurrent construction of a 
solvent HAP control device (ML-2A);
    (3) A medium model line built concurrently with a solvent HAP 
control device (ML-2B);
    (4) A large model line built without concurrent construction of a 
solvent HAP control device (ML-3A); and

          Table 5.--Summary of Emission Points for Model Lines          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Model line       
                Emission point                --------------------------
                                                Small   Mediuma   Largea
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storage tanks................................     *        *        *   
Mix preparation equipment....................     *        *        *   
Equipment leak emissions from piping from mix     *        *        *   
 room to coating operation.                                             
Coating operation............................     *        *        *   
Equipment leak emissions from solvent             *        *        *   
 recovery operations.                                                   
Waste handling...............................     *        *        *   
Packaging/labeling...........................     *        *        *   
Cleaning activities..........................     *        *        *   
Particulates.................................     *        *        *   
Wastewater treatment.........................     *        *        *   
Condenser vents in solvent recovery..........     *        *        *   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aIncludes lines that are built with and without concurrent construction 
  of a control device.                                                  
Note: `*' indicates emission point is included in model line.           

    (5) A large model line built concurrently with a solvent HAP 
control device (ML-3B).
    Model lines are intended to describe new sources that would be 
found in the source category at baseline conditions, i.e., in the 
absence of NESHAP. Because newly constructed lines are subject to the 
NSPS for the industry, the baseline conditions of the model lines 
incorporate control devices or methods required by the NSPS. This means 
that the small line would be uncontrolled, but medium and large lines 
may already be controlling their mix preparation equipment, and would 
at least be controlling the coating operation (see discussion of NSPS 
requirements in section III). The model line emission points that are 
not controlled at baseline but that would be controlled under RA I or 
RA II include storage tanks, mix preparation equipment (ML-1, ML-2A, 
and ML-3A), waste handling devices, and equipment leaks.
    In order to estimate the impact of the NESHAP on new sources, the 
number of new sources needs to be projected. As was discussed in 
section II, no new plants are expected to be built in this source 
category. However, six new lines are expected to be added at existing 
facilities over the next 5 years. Such situations are represented by 
ML-1, ML-2A, and ML-3A (building a new line but not concurrently 
constructing a control device). Because ML-2B and ML-3B are more 
typical of new plants, these model lines are not used in the impact 
calculations. The sizes of the new lines can also only be projected. 
For the purposes of this analysis, the six new lines are projected to 
have the same size mix as the existing sources in the source category. 
Based on the solvent usage designations identified above, 66 percent of 
the existing plants have lines that are large, 26 percent have lines 
that are medium, and 8 percent have lines that are small. To estimate 
impacts for new sources, this is roughly equal to four large model 
lines, 1 medium model line, and 1 small model line. The impacts 
discussed below incorporate this assumption. For a discussion of 
impacts on a model line basis, refer to chapter 7 of the BID (see 
ADDRESSES).
    a. Environmental impacts. As with existing sources, the 
environmental impacts of the regulatory alternatives on new sources 
include primary and secondary air pollution impacts, wastewater 
impacts, and solid waste impacts. All of these impacts are summarized 
in table 6.

                                                            Table 6.--Impacts for New Sources                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           HAP emission   Secondary pollutant emissions, Mg/           Wastewater            Energy requirements, GJ/yr 
                                             reduction               yr (ton/yr)             ------------------------------        (10\6\ Btu/yr)       
                                               from     -------------------------------------                      HAP     -----------------------------
                Reg. alt.                  baseline Mg/                                          Discharge     emissions,                               
                                             yr (tons/        PM         SOx         NOx        10\3\ L/yr     Mg/yr (ton/  Electricity       Steam     
                                               yr)a                                           (10\3\ gal/yr)      yr)b                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I........................................     141 (155)    0.4 (0.5)    5.4 (6)    1.3 (1.4)     1,024 (271)    0.06(0.05)     33 (31)     6,430 (6,100)
II.......................................     194 (213)    0.4 (0.5)    5.4 (6)    1.3 (1.4)     1,024 (271)   0.06 (0.05)     33 (31)     6,430 (6,100)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aThe reduction in particulate HAP emissions is the same for each alternative: 94 percent.                                                               
bThese emissions are to the wasterwater; they are not air emissions.                                                                                    

    The HAP emission reduction achieved with RA I is estimated to be at 
least 141 Mg/yr (155 tons/yr). As indicated in Table 6, RA II does not 
provide any additional particulate HAP emission reduction beyond RA I 
because the control requirements are the same. The additional solvent 
HAP emission reduction associated with RA II (53 Mg/yr [58 tons/yr]) 
are from implementing the LDAR program.
    Secondary pollutants (PM, NOx, and SOx) will be emitted 
from model lines as a result of the combustion of fuel oil in the 
boiler used to produce steam. (It is assumed that all of the model 
lines use carbon adsorption systems as control devices because this is 
the predominant control device used by the major sources in the 
industry.) For ML-1, the fuel oil consumption is a result of a new 
control device required to meet RA I and RA II. For the other model 
lines, the fuel oil consumption is incremental over baseline, resulting 
from controlling additional emission points. As with the existing 
sources, the magnitude of the estimated quantity of secondary emissions 
(7.1 Mg/yr [7.9 tons/yr]) is much less than the estimated HAP emission 
reduction.
    For the same reasons explained for existing sources, there will 
also be incremental wastewater discharges over baseline conditions from 
the model lines under RA I and RA II. Small lines are assumed to 
dispose of wastewater offsite because it is unlikely that a small 
operation would perform on-site wastewater treatment. Thus, there is no 
discharge. The waterborne HAP emission levels presented in Table 6 
assume a 50-ppmw discharge limit for HAP compounds. As indicated in 
this table, the quantity of HAP discharged to the wastewater is small.
    The final environmental impacts associated with the model lines are 
solid waste impacts. All model lines except for the small model line 
are currently assumed to use fixed-bed carbon adsorption systems to 
meet the requirements of the NSPS (baseline conditions for new lines). 
As with existing sources, it is assumed that the control of additional 
emission points would not decrease the carbon life. Thus, there are no 
solid waste impacts from medium and large lines. Overall impacts are a 
result of any new small model lines.
    b. Energy impacts. The estimated additional steam requirement of 
new lines that would result from implementing the regulatory 
alternatives are presented in table 6. This table also includes the 
additional electricity requirements for new lines. As explained for 
existing sources, RA I and RA II have the same energy impacts because 
the higher level control options associated with RA II have no energy 
requirements.
    c. Cost impacts. There are some difficulties inherent in estimating 
the cost of regulatory alternatives for new sources because the ``new'' 
sources are expected to be new coating operations and ancillary 
equipment installed at existing plants. There are, therefore, many 
factors that would influence the cost to meet the proposed standards. 
Factors that vary from plant-to-plant include the size of the plant, 
the existing level of control, the type of control device used, the 
percentage of total solvent used that is HAP, the extent of magnetic 
tape operations (as compared to other manufacturing operations) at a 
plant, the percentage of HAP in the coating mix, and process 
differences such as the type and amount of equipment in the plant 
(important in assessing the appropriateness of LDAR). Some of these 
factors have been accounted for in developing the model lines, but to 
account for all differences among the plants in this source category 
would be impossible.
    Despite the difficulties in estimating the cost of regulatory 
alternatives on new sources, such an analysis is necessary to determine 
the extent of control that is appropriate for these sources. Therefore, 
a range of the incremental cost-effectiveness values that would result 
if RA II were applied instead of RA I has been estimated by 
incorporating as many factors as was reasonably possible into the model 
plant analysis. The range of cost-effectiveness values was calculated 
to determine the range of cost impacts that may actually be encountered 
in the industry. In addition to estimating the cost impacts on the 
model lines previously described, costs were estimated assuming that 
the models used incinerators instead of carbon adsorption systems. This 
permutation accounts for the fact that some sources in the industry 
(both small and large) have elected to use incineration over solvent 
recovery technologies. The models are still limited in that they assume 
that 100 percent of the solvent used are HAP, and that a facility is 
performing only magnetic tape manufacturing operations.
    If it is assumed that a carbon adsorption system is used to comply 
with RA I, the total annual cost is estimated to be $349,360/yr. This 
cost includes control costs, compliance costs, and reporting and 
recordkeeping costs. The associated cost effectiveness is $2,470/Mg 
($2,250/ton). For RA II, this cost increases to $483,080/yr, with a 
cost effectiveness of $2,500/Mg ($2,270/ton). The incremental cost of 
applying RA II over RA I is approximately $2,550/Mg ($2,320/ton). If an 
incinerator is used to comply with RA I, the total annual cost is 
estimated to be $270,367 including control, compliance, and reporting 
and recordkeeping costs. The associated cost effectiveness is $1,910/Mg 
($1,740/ton). Under RA II, the annual cost increases to $362,847, with 
an average cost effectiveness of $2,370/Mg ($2,150/ton). When 
incineration is the control technique used by model lines, the 
incremental cost of applying RA II over RA I is approximately $7,590/Mg 
($6,900/ton).
3. Selection of MACT
    As with existing sources, in evaluating MACT for new sources the 
Administrator looks at the emission reductions, costs, economic 
impacts, and other environmental and energy impacts. As discussed in 
the previous section, cost impacts were calculated considering that 
either a carbon adsorption system or an incinerator could be used. 
However, as was discussed in section VI.D.2, the environmental and 
energy impacts are based on the use of a carbon adsorption system 
because this type of system is the most commonly used in the industry. 
Based on the environmental impact estimates calculated for existing 
sources, other environmental impacts (i.e., secondary pollutants, 
wastewater and solid waste) are not substantial compared to the HAP 
emission reduction that is achieved with either regulatory alternative, 
regardless of the control technology used. Therefore, as was the case 
for existing sources, the basis of the decision to regulate new sources 
with RA I or RA II is based on the cost impacts and emission 
reductions.
    The cost analysis indicates that, depending on the type of control 
device used and the size of the plant, the incremental nationwide cost 
effectiveness of applying RA II instead of RA I is approximately 
$2,550/Mg if carbon adsorbers are used and $7,590/Mg if incinerators 
are used. On a per-line basis, however, the incremental cost 
effectiveness ranges from $2,400/Mg to almost $60,000/Mg.
    The incremental cost effectiveness of applying RA II over RA I will 
vary depending on the type of plant at which the new line is located. 
An analysis of the estimated incremental cost effectiveness of RA II 
over RA I for existing sources also indicates a wide range in values. 
For some existing facilities, the incremental cost effectiveness is 
low, less than $100/Mg. For others, however, it is very high, exceeding 
$100,000/Mg. As was stated in Section VI.C.3, the industry-wide 
incremental cost effectiveness is $6,100/Mg. The reasons for the 
variation in the incremental cost effectiveness for existing sources 
are not so obvious that distinct subcategories would be possible. For 
example, the incremental cost effectiveness is not consistently high or 
low based on the size of the facility or the type of control device 
used at a plant. The quantity of HAP that is used at a plant relative 
to the total solvent used affects the incremental cost effectiveness, 
as does the extent of magnetic tape manufacturing operations at a 
facility (i.e., other products may be manufactured). There are no clear 
distinctions, however, to indicate when RA II is cost-effective and 
when it is not; it is highly source-specific.
    Based on the costs and emission reductions associated with RA I and 
RA II, and the potentially high incremental cost effectiveness of 
applying RA II over RA I, the Administrator is proposing that MACT for 
new sources should be RA I, which is also the proposed MACT for 
existing sources. As with existing sources, the Agency does not feel 
that the additional cost of RA II is justified given the small 
incremental emission reduction that results.

E. Pollution Prevention Considerations

    The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 establishes the following 
environmental management hierarchy as national policy:
    (1) Pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source wherever 
feasible;
    (2) Pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an 
environmentally safe manner wherever feasible;
    (3) Pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be 
treated in an environmentally safe manner wherever feasible; and
    (4) Disposal or other release into the environment should be 
employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an 
environmentally safe manner.
    The Pollution Prevention Act considers ``source reduction'' as a 
fundamental aspect of pollution prevention. Source reduction is any 
practice that reduces the amount of any hazardous substance entering 
the waste stream or otherwise released into the environment prior to 
recycling, treatment, or disposal. Practices such as recycling, energy 
recovery, treatment, and disposal are not considered pollution 
prevention measures under the Pollution Prevention Act. However, as 
noted above, recycling conducted in an environmentally safe manner is 
still desirable.
    The proposed rule contains one source reduction element and 
encourages environmentally beneficial recycling. Some source reduction 
is achieved by requiring that existing and new sources maintain a 75-
percent freeboard ratio in wash sinks used for cleaning removable 
parts. This control technique limits emissions by requiring that a 
lower level of solvent be kept in the sink. For example, a facility 
previously may have filled the wash sink to capacity; now, the sink 
would only be filled about one-quarter of that amount, but the same 
level of cleanliness would still be achieved. Solvent emissions have 
thus been reduced by reducing solvent usage. It is estimated that 
solvent emissions are reduced by 88 percent compared to traditional 
methods of cleaning parts in wash sinks. The extent to which usage is 
reduced will vary from plant to plant; some sources may wash parts more 
frequently even though the amount of solvent used during each cleaning 
is reduced. The trend indicated by existing sources maintaining a 
freeboard ratio, however, is that overall solvent usage will be 
reduced.
    Although not considered source reduction, solvent recycling is a 
common practice in this industry and is further encouraged by the 
proposed rule. Many facilities in this source category use solvent 
recovery devices such as carbon adsorption systems or condensers to 
control air emissions. The solvent controlled by these devices is 
subsequently collected and distilled so that it can be reused in either 
the coating or cleaning process. This is a very beneficial process both 
to industry and the environment. Industry benefits because any solvent 
that is recycled is profitable; it is solvent that they would otherwise 
have to purchase. Also, less solvent enters the waste stream because 
less solvent is used. An environmental benefit is that less consumption 
of solvent by this industry means less production of solvent and the 
negative environmental impacts that go along with solvent manufacturing 
processes.
    It has also been determined that there are negligible cross-media 
impacts from the solvent recovery devices in this industry. Any 
wastewater that results is treated in a steam stripper prior to 
discharge to a POTW. The solvent recovered from stripping is collected, 
distilled, and reused. The other secondary impacts from control 
operations have been calculated and are very small compared to the HAP 
emission reduction that is achieved with the devices. Finally, with 
regard to carbon adsorption systems, the carbon is regenerated onsite 
until its useful life is over, approximately 5 years. The amount of 
carbon disposed by a large facility (worst case) is small compared to 
other solid waste generators and is estimated as 8,000 pounds every 5 
years. Facilities have reported that the spent carbon is a nonhazardous 
solid waste that can be sent offsite for reactivation when its useful 
life is over.

F. Selection of Format

    The emission points to be covered by the proposed standards 
include:
    (1) The solvent storage tanks;
    (2) The mix preparation equipment;
    (3) The coating operation(s);
    (4) The waste handling devices;
    (5) The particulate transfer operations;
    (6) The wash sinks for cleaning removable parts;
    (7) Cleaning involving the flushing of fixed lines;
    (8) The wastewater treatment systems; and
    (9) The condenser vents in the solvent recovery area except the 
vent on a condenser that is the primary air pollution control device.
    The proposed standards require an overall HAP control efficiency of 
95 percent for control of emissions from each of the following sources: 
Solvent storage tanks, mix preparation equipment, coating operation(s), 
waste handling devices, and condenser vents in solvent recovery. 
Sources using incineration can alternatively meet an emission limit of 
20 ppmv HAP outlet concentration. For wastewater, 99 percent of the HAP 
present must be removed, or the total HAP outlet concentration must not 
exceed 50 ppmw. Emissions from wash sinks must be controlled by 88 
percent. Equipment standards would be required to control emissions 
from particulate transfer operations and the cleaning of fixed lines by 
flushing. The rationale for selecting the percent efficiency format is 
provided below. The rationale for selection of the emission limit for 
wastewater treatment and wash sinks, the alternative emission limit for 
incinerators, and for the equipment standards are presented in section 
VI.G.
    There were several formats that were considered for the proposed 
standards, including a concentration limit (ppm), a mass emission rate 
per volume of coating or coating solids (lb/gal or lb VOC/lb solids), a 
process emission rate (lb emitted/unit produced), or a percent control 
efficiency. The primary reason for choosing percent reduction as the 
format of the standards is the fact that this format assures a 
consistent requirement for all plants and allows plants flexibility in 
the method selected for emission reduction. The NSPS also use a percent 
reduction format. To maintain consistency between the NSPS and NESHAP, 
it is reasonable to choose the same format for the NESHAP.
    A concentration format is not recommended in all cases because it 
does not always result in equivalent control among all facilities. For 
example, a facility with a high inlet loading to the control device 
would be controlling more total emissions than a facility with a lower 
inlet loading. The format of mass per unit of production (e.g., kg/m\2\ 
of tape coated) is not recommended because it would result in different 
levels of control at different plants due to variations in coating 
thickness and coating solvent content. The format of mass of emissions 
per volume of coating or per mass of coating solids is also not 
recommended because of the variety of coating formulations used. The 
above formats are also not recommended because recent HAP emission data 
are not available for this source category. As such, there is no 
technical basis for establishing a value for the pounds of HAP emitted 
per hour, per coating solids, or per unit produced. Also, given the 
fact that this industry uses solvents that are both HAP and non-HAP and 
each operation differs in the percent of solvent used that is HAP, it 
would be very difficult to establish one HAP emission rate or HAP 
concentration for the entire industry. Therefore, a percent reduction 
format is proposed.
    One undesirable aspect of the percent reduction format is that it 
does not credit improvements in the coating formulation or in process 
operations that could potentially be pollution prevention measures. For 
example, reduction in the HAP content of the coating through the use of 
water-based coatings or a reduction in the amount of HAP applied per 
unit of tape manufactured would not be credited toward compliance. This 
might discourage development of water-based coatings or optimization of 
processes from a pollution prevention standpoint. One possible solution 
to the problems inherent with a percent reduction format is to specify 
a coating limit (e.g., pounds of HAP per gallon) that is an acceptable 
alternative to the percent reduction proposed. The NSPS for this 
industry have a similar provision; to date, no source subject to the 
NSPS has complied with the rule by using a low-VOC coating. The Agency 
requests comments on the feasibility of allowing a coating limit as an 
equivalence to compliance with the proposed percent reduction in HAP 
emissions, as well as data that would suggest the specific coating 
limit that would be equivalent with the proposed MACT requirements.

G. Selection of Emission Limits, Work Practice, and Equipment Standards

    The emission limit that has been selected for controlling HAP 
emissions from solvent storage tanks, mix preparation equipment, 
coating operation, and waste handling devices is a HAP control 
efficiency of 95 percent at each emission point. In expressing the 
standards for some emission points as a 95-percent control efficiency, 
the Agency is relying on past tests and proven performance that 
indicate the control efficiency that is achievable with certain control 
devices. For example, through tests in other industries it has been 
proven that well-operated and well-maintained carbon adsorption systems 
and incinerators can obtain at least 95-percent removal efficiencies.
    The proposed standards allow facilities using incinerators the 
alternative of achieving either the 95-percent control efficiency or an 
emission limit of 20 ppmv total HAP. The 20 ppmv HAP limit is based on 
the Agency's study of available incinerator technology, cost, and 
energy use. The dual requirement of 95 percent or 20 ppmv limit 
accounts for a fall-off of incinerator efficiency at lower inlet 
concentrations. The Agency believes that a 20-ppmv HAP limit could be 
reached by most incinerators with moderate adjustments.
    One technical issue associated with the selection of an overall HAP 
control efficiency of 95 percent that was brought up by a member of the 
industry is the difficulty of achieving this efficiency at low inlet 
concentrations. The concern was raised with respect to a carbon 
adsorber. Typically, one common control device is used to control 
emissions from the various sources at a magnetic tape operation. If the 
coating operation emission point is not concurrently being directed to 
the control device with the emissions from other emission points such 
as the mixers and storage tanks, the inlet concentration to the control 
device may be very low. For example, the inlet concentration when the 
coating operation is operating may be 3,000 ppmv and an outlet 
concentration of 100 ppmv could be achieved (a 96.7 percent emission 
reduction). If only mix preparation equipment, solvent storage tanks, 
or waste handling device emissions are being vented, the inlet 
concentration may only be 200 ppmv. Even if an outlet concentration of 
30 ppmv is achieved, the control efficiency is only 85 percent. The EPA 
has recognized this problem for incinerators and, consequently, has 
included the alternative 20 ppmv HAP emission level.
    However, the proposed standards do not include special provisions 
for low inlet concentrations for control devices other than 
incinerators. The Agency would like comments and data on this issue. 
If, based on comments received at proposal, the Agency determines that 
the 95-percent control efficiency standards cannot be met at low 
concentrations, the Agency is considering the following possible 
solutions for the promulgated standards:
    (1) Allow a longer averaging time for demonstration of compliance 
(e.g., the proposed monitoring requirements identify a 3-day rolling 
average for carbon adsorbers; this averaging period could be increased 
to allow for some fluctuation in the percent efficiency when the 
coating operation is down);
    (2) Specify an alternate control efficiency for periods when the 
coating operation is down; or
    (3) Specify an outlet concentration for those periods when the 
coating operation is down.
    The Agency would also like to receive comments and any data that 
may indicate an appropriate averaging time, outlet concentration, or 
percent removal efficiency.
    Another emission point that requires a percent removal efficiency 
is the wastewater treatment system; owners or operators must remove 99 
percent of the HAP in wastewater discharged from the water phase of a 
carbon adsorption system using steam desorption. The percent removal 
efficiency is primarily based on the analysis being carried out for the 
hazardous organic NESHAP (HON) for the chemical manufacturing industry. 
The proposed HON rule (see 57 FR 62628) indicated that the HAP 
compounds used in the magnetic tape industry (MEK, toluene, MIBK) are 
readily stripped and a 99-percent removal efficiency is proposed for 
those compounds. There are no specific data for magnetic tape 
operations, but industry representatives have stated that wastewater 
treatment operations are likely to be 99-percent efficient. The Agency 
solicits comments on this efficiency. Data would be necessary to 
support any suggested efficiency requirements other than 99 percent.
    The proposed standards would also allow sources to comply with the 
wastewater treatment provisions of the proposed regulation by treating 
the wastewater discharge from the separator in a steam stripper such 
that the effluent from the steam stripper has a total HAP concentration 
of less than 50 ppmw. The emission limit of 50 ppmw HAP is based on 
data from two facilities that operate steam strippers that are 
estimated to remove at least 99 percent of the HAP compounds present. 
The total HAP concentration in the effluent from their steam strippers 
was reported as 20 and 40 ppmw. These concentrations are representative 
of the HAP concentration in the wastewater before it is combined with 
any other on-site wastewaters (such as sanitary waste). In other rules 
requiring the treatment of wastewater via steam stripping, the Agency 
has selected 50 ppmw as an appropriate emission limit for compounds of 
similar stripability. The data support this limit as being achievable 
for this source category. The available data are too limited and too 
inconclusive, however, to support a lower limit. Therefore, a HAP 
concentration of 50 ppmw in the water discharge is being proposed for 
this standard. The Agency requests comments on this proposed limit, as 
well as any data that would support an alternate limit.
    The proposed standards require that HAP emissions from wash sinks 
be controlled by 88 percent. This level of control can be achieved by 
maintaining a 75-percent freeboard ratio. This is the freeboard ratio 
maintained by facilities in the source category currently subject to 
regulatory requirements on wash sinks. An alternative method of 
controlling wash sink emissions is to vent them to the common control 
device; this method is also thought to be 88-percent efficient. The 
emission limit identified for both control technologies is based on 
industry tests that compared the quantity of HAP emissions occurring 
from wash sinks both before and after controls are imposed.
    The other emission points that will require control under the 
proposed standards include the particulate transfer operations and 
cleaning that involves the flushing of fixed lines. For these emission 
points, the proposed standards are expressed as equipment standards. 
Although NESHAP are normally structured in terms of numerical emission 
limits, alternative approaches are sometimes necessary. In some cases, 
physically measuring emissions from a source may be impossible or at 
least impracticable because of technological and economic limitations. 
Section 112(h) authorizes the Administrator to promulgate a design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination 
thereof, in those cases where it is not feasible to prescribe or 
enforce an emissions standard. For this source category, equipment 
standards have been selected for the reasons described below.
    The requirement for particulate transfer operations would be an 
equipment standard, requiring the installation of an enclosed transfer 
device to be used when transferring chromium- or cobalt-containing 
particulates. The definition of an enclosed transfer device is provided 
in Sec. 63.702. An emission limit or percent control efficiency is not 
feasible because HAP emissions from particulate transfer cannot 
reasonably be emitted through a conveyance system designed and 
constructed to capture these pollutants. Therefore, it is recommended 
that this emission point be regulated by an equipment standard. There 
is at least one source in the industry that does not have an enclosed 
transfer device but uses fabric filters to remove particulate from the 
solvent-laden air being sent to the control device. The Agency 
currently has no data to suggest the feasibility of, or control 
efficiency associated with, such filters. The Agency is concerned that 
particulate emissions would not be sufficiently captured and delivered 
to the control device. The one facility using fabric filters for 
control operates within a total enclosure designed to capture gaseous 
emissions. The Agency is also concerned that particulate emissions 
could occur during the removal of the particulate from the filters. 
Therefore, the Agency is not proposing an alternative standard based on 
such a system. The Agency is interested in data that show whether the 
total enclosure controls particulate emissions as well as gaseous 
emissions. However, the Agency specifically requests comments on the 
proposed standard for not identifying as an alternate particulate 
control level an overall control efficiency that could be achieved by 
capturing particulates and venting them to a control device such as a 
fabric filter. Data that indicate the overall control efficiency 
(capture and control) of such systems would be required to support any 
suggested efficiency.
    For control of emissions from flushing fixed lines, the standards 
would be equipment-based, requiring that the lines be flushed using a 
closed system (see description in section VI.B). Alternatively, if open 
tanks are used for supply and collection, the area in which they are 
located would need to be vented to a control device such that the 
overall efficiency is 95 percent. Every facility in the industry that 
flushes fixed lines performs the operations in one of these two ways. 
An emission limitation is not appropriate because the HAP from this 
operation are not emitted through a conveyance system designed and 
constructed to capture these pollutants.

H. Selection of Monitoring Requirements

    In accordance with paragraph (3) to section 114 of the amended Act, 
enhanced monitoring of stationary sources is required to determine the 
compliance status of the sources, and whether compliance is continuous 
or intermittent. For most of the sources subject to the proposed 
standards, initial compliance is determined through the initial 
compliance test, and ongoing compliance through continuous monitoring. 
The Agency has proposed the parameters to be monitored for the types of 
capture and control devices now used in the industry. The value of this 
parameter that corresponds to compliance with the standard is set by 
the owner or operator during the initial compliance test. If future 
monitoring indicates that capture or control equipment is operating 
outside of the range of values established during the initial 
performance test, the owner or operator is out of compliance with the 
standards, except as specified for malfunctions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of 
the General Provisions.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Work Practice and Equipment Standards
    For equipment standards, no monitoring would be required. However, 
the owner or operator is expected to install and operate the equipment 
properly (for particulate transfer and flushing fixed lines). For 
owners or operators complying with the proposed standards for wash 
sinks by maintaining a freeboard ratio (a work practice) compliance 
would be demonstrated through recordkeeping (see section VI.K).
2. Emission Limits
    The proposed standards require an overall HAP control efficiency of 
95 percent for the storage tanks, mix preparation equipment, coating 
operation, waste handling devices, and condenser vents in solvent 
recovery. Facilities in the industry will most likely demonstrate 
compliance with the standards through one of two methods:
    (1) By demonstrating the efficiency of the capture equipment and 
removal or destruction efficiency of the control equipment; or
    (2) By performing a material balance calculation. An overall HAP 
control efficiency of 88 percent is required for controlling emissions 
from wash sinks. This can be attained by maintaining a 75-percent 
freeboard ratio or venting the emissions to a control device. A 99-
percent HAP removal efficiency, or a total HAP outlet concentration of 
50 ppmw, is required for the wastewater emission point. Sources will 
likely comply with the standards by operating a steam stripper.
    For the magnetic tape source category, initial compliance will be 
demonstrated following the procedures outlined in Sec. 63.705 of the 
proposed rule. Ongoing compliance is demonstrated through either direct 
measurement to show compliance with the emission limit (i.e., overall 
control efficiency of 95 percent or, for incinerators only, a 20-ppmv 
emission limit) or through monitoring an operating parameter. The 
Agency has identified the parameters that are considered appropriate 
for certain types of capture and control equipment. There are no 
additional monitoring requirements for facilities demonstrating 
compliance through a material balance because the material balance 
calculation itself demonstrates compliance.
    a. Demonstrating compliance for an add-on control device. Except as 
described in paragraph b, below, the Agency is proposing that owners or 
operators using an add-on air pollution control device demonstrate 
ongoing compliance through the use of continuous emission monitors 
(CEM's) that measure the total VOC concentration. The emission monitors 
shall be located either at the inlet and outlet to the control device 
(so that a percent VOC removal efficiency can be calculated), or at the 
outlet to the control device. If the monitor is located only at the 
outlet, the outlet VOC concentration value that corresponds to 
compliance with the standards must be established during the initial 
performance test. (Alternatively, owners or operators of incinerators 
may accept 20 ppmv as the outlet VOC concentration to monitor.) In both 
cases, the CEM's would measure total VOC concentration. For this source 
category, measurement of VOC is an appropriate surrogate for HAP 
measurement, as discussed in section VI.I, Selection of Compliance Test 
Methods.
    The Agency is proposing CEM's as the method for complying with the 
emission limit because these are the most accurate devices that can be 
used to ensure compliance with the standard. As discussed in paragraph 
2, below, continuous parameter monitoring is allowed in lieu of CEM's 
for owners or operators of incinerators and condensers. Parameter 
monitoring is not allowed for owners or operators of carbon adsorption 
systems because there are no process parameters that are directly 
related to efficient operation. While carbon bed and steam temperatures 
may be indicators of acceptable performance, they have not been shown 
to be directly correlated to control device efficiency. Also, CEM's 
were required by the NSPS for facilities using carbon adsorption 
systems to comply with the standards, and the Agency would like to make 
the two rules consistent wherever possible. The proposed NESHAP also 
require CEM's when carbon adsorption systems are used because they are 
technically feasible and, based on their current use in the industry, 
are considered reasonable in terms of cost. Therefore, a less stringent 
monitoring requirement was not evaluated.
    b. Demonstrating compliance through operating parameter 
measurement. Owners or operators using incinerators and condensers to 
comply with the proposed standards are required to conduct an initial 
performance test to demonstrate compliance with the standards, in 
accordance with Sec. 63.705 of the proposed rule. Owners or operators 
of incinerators and condensers may use CEM's to demonstrate continuous 
compliance. However, parameter monitoring is also allowed if these 
devices are used. The Agency has selected temperature as the operating 
parameter that would then be monitored to determine ongoing compliance 
with the standard. Owners or operators of incinerators would have to 
monitor the combustion temperature (or the temperature before and after 
the catalyst bed if a catalytic incinerator is used), and owners or 
operators of condensers would have to monitor the temperature of the 
vapor exhaust stream. The value of the site-specific operating 
parameter is established by the owner or operator during the initial 
performance test. The site-specific operating parameter value is the 
arithmetic average of the maximum or minimum temperatures (as 
appropriate), measured during each of the three test runs required by 
Sec. 60.705(b)(2), which demonstrates compliance with the standards 
(i.e., a 95-percent control efficiency or, for incinerators only, an 
outlet HAP concentration of 20 ppmv).
    The use of CEM's on incinerators or condensers are not proposed to 
be required for the following reasons:
    (1) CEM's are not currently in use by facilities in this industry 
that operate these devices;
    (2) For each of these control systems a measurable control device 
parameter, temperature, is considered to provide a suitable indication 
of performance for determining compliance; and
    (3) Temperature monitors are considerably less costly than CEM's.
    The proposed standards, therefore, would be based on parameter 
monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the standards for 
incinerators and condensers. The Agency is soliciting comments on the 
selection of temperature as a parameter to monitor for compliance and 
any available data on the correlation of the control device parameter 
to the control efficiency. The proposed rule would not preclude owners 
or operators who are using incinerators or condensers to comply with 
the rule from choosing to use CEM's to demonstrate compliance instead 
of monitoring temperature.
    For owners or operators complying with the wastewater provisions of 
the proposed rule by using a steam stripper, the operating parameter 
that will be monitored to demonstrate ongoing compliance is the steam-
to-feed ratio. The Agency has selected this monitoring parameter 
because the steam-to-feed ratio is directly related to proper column 
operation. Monitoring the HAP concentration of the inlet and outlet of 
the stream stripper has not been identified because it is much more 
costly than monitoring the steam-to-feed ratio, and the steam-to-feed 
ratio is adequate to determine compliance. The owner or operator shall 
select as the operating parameter value the minimum steam-to-feed ratio 
that demonstrates compliance with the standards. Steam-to-feed ratios 
reported by two manufacturing plants range from 1:3 to 1:11 on a weight 
basis.
    Different types of capture equipment may be used to comply with the 
standards; in some cases, monitoring is required to ensure that it is 
operating properly. The capture device used by most existing facilities 
is a total enclosure that meets the criteria identified in 
Sec. 63.705(c)(4)(i). Proper operation of the enclosure is crucial to 
compliance with the standards and depends on the velocity at which air 
is induced into the enclosure by the fan that drafts emissions to the 
control device. To assure that the enclosure is properly operated 
(e.g., all doors or other openings that were closed during the 
performance test remain closed normally), the operating conditions of 
the enclosure must by monitored. A description of the advantages and 
potential problems with some possible monitoring scenarios follows.
    During the performance test, the inlet velocity may be determined 
by calculation. It would not be acceptable to assume that after the 
performance test the configuration of the enclosure remains unchanged. 
For example, doors that were closed during the performance test will 
subsequently be used by operating personnel to enter and exit the 
enclosure, so the monitoring procedure should be able to assure that 
such openings are brief and that the total square feet of openings is 
less than or equal to performance test conditions.
    Ideally, the monitoring technique would reflect any change from 
conditions during the performance test that would deviate from 
compliance with the total enclosure criteria. One method for assuring 
that doors (or walls) that were closed (or in place) during the 
performance test remain in place during operation of the process is the 
use of manometers or sensors that measure the pressure difference, or 
the use of a differential recording manometer or other differential 
pressure device. Ongoing operation should, at a minimum, replicate the 
conditions under which the facility passed the initial compliance test.
    For the purpose of the cost analysis, it was assumed that 
differential pressure monitoring would ensure continuous compliance. In 
such a situation, the manometer (or other differential pressure device) 
should accurately reflect the pressure loss from outside of the 
enclosure to some position within. The manometers selected to monitor 
the pressure difference must have an error less than the magnitude of 
the expected pressure difference. If the minimum air velocity 
identified in the total enclosure criteria of Sec. 63.704(c)(4)(1) is 
maintained, the differential pressure could be as low as 0.004 inches 
of water. Care must also be used in installing the measurement devices 
to assure that the very small pressure loss across the enclosure wall 
is not overwhelmed by the influence to the hood or other air pickup 
device within the enclosure. For example, to locate one leg of a 
manometer in the ductwork to the fan would cause the manometer to 
measure the pressure drop associated with the hood, the magnitude of 
which could be one or more inches of water. This would mask any small 
changes across the enclosure wall. Thus, the location of monitors is 
important because their operation can be affected by their proximity to 
exhaust fans.
    To provide flexibility in monitoring capture equipment, the Agency 
is proposing that owners or operators of capture equipment that require 
continuous monitoring (i.e., enclosures) submit to the Administrator a 
plan that outlines:
    (1) The parameter to be monitored;
    (2) Why this parameter is appropriate to demonstrate that 100-
percent capture is being maintained; and
    (3) How the operating parameter will be monitored (i.e., locations 
of monitors).
    The capture equipment monitoring plan shall be submitted to the 
Administrator with the compliance status report required by 
Sec. 63.9(h) of the proposed General Provisions to part 63.\6\ The 
acceptable operating parameter value will be set by the owner or 
operator during the initial performance test as required by either 
Sec. 63.705(c)(2), (3), or (4), in accordance with the plan submitted 
to the Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of hard piping used to direct the emissions from the 
emission point to the control device, compliance with the proposed 
standards would be achieved by:
    (1) Demonstrating that all emissions from each piece of equipment 
are delivered to the control device, thus ensuring 100-percent capture; 
and
    (2) Measuring the control efficiency of the control device in 
accordance with test methods outlined in Section VI.I.
    Ongoing compliance monitoring would then consist of that required 
for the control device to which the equipment vents. Monitoring of the 
capture efficiency is not required because piping connects the emission 
source to the control device.
    Owners or operators of any capture or control device that contains 
bypass lines that could divert flow away from the control device and to 
the atmosphere must monitor these lines. The proposed regulation 
requires either the installation and operation of a flow indicator, or 
securing the bypass line with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type 
configuration.
    Owners or operators that use capture or control techniques not 
identified in the proposed regulation must identify operating 
parameters to monitor and the frequency of monitoring, subject to the 
Administrator's approval.
    c. General monitoring requirements. In accordance with 
Sec. 63.8(c)(4) of the proposed General Provisions, all continuous 
monitoring systems measuring either emissions or an operating parameter 
shall complete a minimum of one measurement cycle (sampling, analyzing, 
and data recording) for each successive 15-minute period.\7\ The EPA 
requests comment on the appropriateness of this monitoring frequency 
for this source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The determination of compliance varies for each type of control or 
capture system. Owners or operators complying with the standards by 
using condensers, incinerators, and total enclosures may be determined 
to be out of compliance with the standards if, for any 3-hour period, 
the average operating parameter value exceeds or is less than the value 
established during the initial performance test, as applicable. A 3-
hour averaging time is chosen to determine compliance because it 
parallels the 3 test runs conducted for the initial performance test.
    Owners or operators complying with the standards by using carbon 
adsorbers with a common exhaust stack may be determined to be out of 
compliance with the standards if, for any three consecutive adsorption 
cycles, the control efficiency or outlet concentration is less than 
that specified by the standards. Owners or operators complying with the 
standards by using carbon adsorbers with individual exhaust stacks for 
each of the multiple beds may be determined to be out of compliance 
with the standards if, for any 3-day period, a rolling average of the 
control efficiency values or outlet concentration values is less than 
that specified by the standards.
    The Agency believes that a different compliance timeframe is 
appropriate for carbon adsorbers than for condensers, incinerators, or 
total enclosures. Section 63.705(b) of the proposed rule requires that 
the performance test coincide with one or more adsorption cycles. The 
averaging times for compliance that are specified in the proposed rule 
ensure that the performance test runs and monitoring averaging periods 
will parallel the complete adsorption cycles of the individual adsorber 
vessels or the system's complete sequential rotation through the 
adsorption cycles of all the vessels. Use of a testing or monitoring 
period that does not correspond to at least one actual adsorber vessel 
cycle or system rotation could bias the results slightly in either 
direction. Efficiencies would be biased high if the test run or 
monitoring period did not include the elevated emissions typical at the 
beginning and end of a vessel's adsorption cycle; efficiencies would be 
biased low if the period included a disproportionate number of these 
emission peaks.
    In determining compliance with the standards, periods of startup 
and shutdown shall be included because these periods are part of normal 
operations for this source category.

I. Selection of Compliance Test Methods

    Compliance test methods are required to verify that an owner or 
operator complies with the proposed rule. Initial compliance tests are 
also required so that owners or operators can establish values for the 
site-specific operating parameters that will be monitored to ensure 
ongoing compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.704 of the proposed 
standards. The proposed rule allows several methods for owners or 
operators to demonstrate compliance with the proposed emission limits. 
This flexibility is needed because of the various types of control 
devices currently used in the industry.
1. Compliance With a 95-Percent HAP Control Efficiency
    For certain emission points, the proposed rule requires an overall 
HAP control efficiency of 95 percent. The overall control efficiency is 
calculated in one of two ways:
    (1) As the product of the capture efficiency and the control 
efficiency; or
    (2) As demonstrated by a liquid-liquid material balance conducted 
in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 63.705(c)(1).
    a. Calculation of capture efficiency. When emissions are ducted 
from the emission point, through piping, and to the control device, 100 
percent capture is presumed if the requirements of Sec. 63.705(d)(1)(i) 
are met. The proposed rule allows two ways to calculate the capture 
efficiency if an enclosure is used. The first way is to perform a 
capture efficiency test in accordance with the provisions of 
Sec. 63.705(c) (2) or (3). Another way to demonstrate 100-percent 
capture is to meet the total enclosure criteria of Sec. 63.705(c)(4). 
Both methods are proposed to provide flexibility to sources, especially 
those that currently operate enclosures that may not meet the total 
enclosure criteria. If an owner or operator believes that an existing 
enclosure, in conjunction with a control device, can achieve an overall 
HAP control efficiency of 95 percent, the owner or operator can perform 
a capture efficiency test in lieu of retrofitting these older 
enclosures to be total enclosures.
    b. Calculation of control efficiency. The proposed standards allow 
either the EPA Method 25A or the EPA Method 18 of Appendix A to part 60 
for determining the control efficiency of the air pollution control 
device. The EPA Method 25A is used to measure the total VOC 
concentration such that the VOC removal efficiency can be calculated. 
The EPA Method 18 is used to measure the concentration of individual 
species of HAP; a HAP removal efficiency could then be calculated.
    Although the standards are expressed as HAP removal efficiency, the 
measure of VOC removal (the EPA Method 25A) is being allowed as a 
surrogate for several reasons. One reason for proposing that VOC 
removal efficiency be used as a surrogate to determine compliance with 
the standards is that the cost of compliance will be less. If VOC 
removal efficiency is allowed as a surrogate for HAP removal 
efficiency, sources could use the EPA Method 25A to determine initial 
compliance. Otherwise, the EPA Method 18 must be used. The EPA Method 
25A is approximately 20 percent less costly than the EPA Method 18. 
Industry-wide performance test costs would increase by approximately 50 
percent and overall annual costs would increase by approximately 35 
percent if the EPA Method 18 were required. This is because, in 
accordance with Sec. 63.705(a)(1) of the proposed rule, seven 
facilities that have continuous VOC monitors on their control device 
would be exempt from an initial performance test if the EPA Method 25A 
is required. (The continuous monitors would be able to demonstrate that 
a 95-percent VOC removal is being continuously achieved.) All of these 
facilities, however, would be required to do testing if the EPA Method 
18 is required because none have data on the removal efficiency of 
specific HAP compounds.
    The Agency does not believe that there will be any sacrifice of 
environmental benefits by allowing owners or operators to use the EPA 
Method 25A to demonstrate compliance. The control efficiency data that 
are available for this source category indicate that control devices 
used in this industry remove or destroy 95 percent of the VOC entering 
the device. Most of the VOC used in the industry are HAP. It would 
therefore follow that if 95 percent of the VOC are being removed, 95 
percent of the HAP are being removed.
    If a carbon adsorption system is being used as the air pollution 
control device, it could be argued that non-HAP VOC's could be 
preferentially sorbed over HAP. However, the data that are available on 
specific compound removal efficiencies show that, although there may be 
differences in the removal rates of various compounds in a carbon 
adsorption system, these differences are very small for the compounds 
used in this industry. For example, there are data from two performance 
tests that indicated the control efficiency for individual species 
controlled with carbon adsorbers in this industry. An analysis of the 
data confirms that different species will be adsorbed at different 
efficiencies. However, both HAP and non-HAP solvents were removed at 
average efficiencies exceeding 95 percent. Also, in both systems, the 
difference in removal efficiencies for various compounds was not great.
    c. Liquid-liquid material balance. Owners or operators that use a 
solvent recovery device to control emissions from the coating operation 
may demonstrate compliance with the emission limit by performing a 
liquid-liquid material balance in accordance with Sec. 63.705(c)(1). 
This compliance method was allowed under the NSPS for this source 
category, and is employed by at least one source that is subject to the 
NSPS. Under the NSPS, owners or operators are required to compute the 
overall control efficiency by continuously measuring the amount of VOC 
applied at the coater and comparing this amount to the amount of VOC 
recovered at solvent recovery. The overall emission reduction is 
calculated on a 30-day rolling average basis. Under these standards, a 
3-day rolling average basis has been selected to provide a more 
representative picture of compliance with these standards, consistent 
with the requirements of Sec. 63.704(c)(3) for carbon adsorbers. Also, 
regulators typically assess ozone attainment status by evaluating 
compliance over a shorter timeframe; the shorter averaging time would 
facilitate their evaluation. The Agency specifically requests comments 
on the feasibility of a 3-day averaging period for the material balance 
calculation, as well as data to support this or another appropriate 
averaging period.
2. Compliance With a 20-ppmv HAP Emission Limit for Incinerators
    The proposed rule provides an alternative to the 95-percent overall 
HAP control efficiency for sources using incinerators as control 
devices. Initial compliance would be determined using the same methods 
as for the control efficiency (i.e., either the EPA Method 25A or EPA 
Method 18), although only the outlet concentration would be measured.
3. Compliance With an 88-Percent HAP Control Efficiency
    The proposed rule requires that HAP emissions from wash sinks used 
for cleaning removable parts be controlled by 88 percent. Compliance 
with this standard can be achieved by maintaining a 75-percent 
freeboard ratio or by venting emissions from the wash sink to a control 
device. Compliance with the freeboard ratio is demonstrated by 
recordkeeping and reporting (see section VI.K.). If a source chooses to 
comply with the provisions of this standard by venting to a control 
device, compliance provisions depend on whether or not the source is in 
place prior to proposal of this rule. If it is, no testing is required. 
New sources, however, will have to demonstrate that an overall control 
efficiency is being achieved by performing capture efficiency and 
control device efficiency tests in accordance with Sec. 63.705(c) (2), 
(3), or (4) of the proposed rule. Testing is reasonable for new sources 
because the owner or operator could install the wash sink such that 
there would be sufficient space for a total enclosure, or the space 
required to perform a capture efficiency test. Existing sources may not 
have this space available.
4. Compliance With a 99-Percent HAP Removal Rate
    The proposed rule requires that the HAP in wastewater discharged 
from the separator in a wastewater treatment system be treated by:
    (1) Using a steam stripper designed to be 99-percent efficient;
    (2) Using a steam stripper such that the total HAP concentration of 
the water discharged from the steam stripper is less than 50 ppmw; or
    (3) Using an alternate treatment device, approved by the 
Administrator, that removes 99 percent of the HAP or results in a total 
HAP concentration of 50 ppmw in the outlet.
    In the proposed rule, compliance provisions are provided for the 
first two situations listed. To demonstrate initial compliance with the 
proposed rule, an owner or operator must either provide engineering 
design calculations that show that the stripper is designed to achieve 
a 99-percent removal efficiency, or sample the wastewater discharged 
from the stripper using the EPA Method 305. The EPA Method 305 is a 
test method that is proposed to be included in appendix A of part 63. 
The EPA Method 305 was proposed with the Hazardous Organic NESHAP on 
December 31, 1992 at 57 FR 62785. The engineering design calculations 
would have to include, at a minimum, feed rate, steam rate, number of 
theoretical trays, number of actual trays, feed composition, bottoms 
composition, overheads composition, and inlet feed temperature. The 
Agency has identified these parameters as the critical ones for proper 
design of a steam stripper. If an alternate treatment device is used, 
the owner or operator must identify the operating parameters to be 
measured to demonstrate initial and ongoing compliance, subject to the 
Administrator's approval.
5. Performance Tests for Continuous Emission Monitors
    Continuous emission monitors (CEM's) that are used to demonstrate 
compliance with emission limits on a continuous basis must meet certain 
performance specification requirements. On October 22, 1993 at 58 FR 
54648, the Agency proposed performance specifications for VOC CEM's for 
inclusion in the appendices to part 64 (the proposed enhanced 
monitoring provisions). These performance specifications (PS 101 and 
102), along with the requirements in appendix F of 40 CFR part 60, 
identify the minimum quality assurance requirements necessary for the 
control and assessment of the quality of the CEM's data submitted to 
the Agency. The performance specifications include, among other 
requirements, that the owner or operator conduct a performance test and 
a relative accuracy test to ensure proper operation of the CEM's and 
high quality data. Quarterly audits are required to demonstrate that 
CEM's continue to be well-maintained and operated. In performing 
quarterly audits, owners or operators must challenge the monitors using 
compounds that are representative of the gaseous emission stream being 
controlled. Owners or operators subject to the proposed standards for 
magnetic tape manufacturing operations that use CEM's for continuous 
compliance monitoring would be subject to the requirements of PS 101 
and 102 of the proposed appendices to part 64 and appendix F of part 
60.

J. Selection of Definition of Affected Source

    The affected source subject to the standards may be a stationary 
source, a group of stationary sources, or a portion of a stationary 
source. The Act defines stationary source as any building, structure, 
facility, or installation which emits or may emit HAP. Most industrial 
plants consist of numerous pieces or groups of equipment that emit HAP 
and that may be viewed as ``sources.'' The EPA, therefore, uses the 
term ``affected source'' to designate the equipment within the plant 
that is chosen as the ``source'' covered by a given standard. In 
general, the affected source can be defined narrowly or broadly, from 
an individual emission point up to and including an entire plant.
    If emissions averaging were to be included as part of the 
regulation, then the definition of affected source would have to be 
broader than each emission point. The reason is that the averaging 
would be implemented across the affected source. For this source 
category, emissions averaging was considered. However, the EPA believes 
the opportunities are relatively limited at magnetic tape manufacturing 
operations, since most facilities already have control devices and the 
majority of the emission points would be ducted to them. Therefore, it 
has not been proposed in this regulation. However, the EPA solicits 
comments and information on emissions averaging for this source 
category. For more information on emissions averaging, refer to the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source 
Categories; Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic 
Chemical Manufacturing Industry (57 FR 62608).
    The definition of affected source influences the implementation of 
section 112 standards in several ways (see 58 FR 42760). The 
designation of affected source has implications related to modification 
and reconstruction provisions. The source definition can determine 
whether a new source standard (e.g., new source MACT) applies to a 
reconstructed source (see 40 CFR 63.2). For example, a narrow 
definition of affected source (e.g., individual pieces of equipment) 
will trigger the new source MACT requirements more readily than a broad 
definition of affected source (e.g., the entire plant). For the 
magnetic tape manufacturing source category, however, the modification 
and reconstruction provisions are not the primary considerations in 
defining the affected source because new source MACT and existing 
source MACT are the same.
    The affected source definition also plays a role in the 
implementation of the approval of State programs and delegation of 
Federal authorities (58 FR 62262). Under 40 CFR 63.93, a State may seek 
approval of State authorities which differ in form from a Federal rule 
developed under section 112 of the CAA. Once approved, the State rule 
substitutes for the Federal section 112 rule. A State would need to 
submit a formal request under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E to accomplish 
this. One of the criteria for approval is that the State rule must be 
at least as stringent as the section 112 rule for each affected source 
covered by the otherwise applicable Federal section 112 rule. A broader 
definition of affected source would allow additional flexibility for a 
different form of the standard to be approved on a case-by-case basis. 
For example, if the EPA chose a broad affected source definition 
encompassing more than one type of emission point, a State would be 
able to seek approval for one emission point to be controlled less 
stringently, and another more stringently than the otherwise applicable 
Federal section 112 rule, as long as the resulting overall stringency 
for the affected source was determined to be at least as stringent as 
the Federal requirement. If the affected source were each emission 
point, the State program would have to be at least as stringent for 
each emission point and, therefore, would be less flexible.
    In addition, the affected source is the entity to which the 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements of this proposed rule and of 
40 CFR part 63, subpart A apply. In particular, the notification 
requirements of the proposed Sec. 63.9 apply to each affected 
source.8 For each new affected source, an owner or operator is 
required to notify the permitting authority of its construction. A 
narrow definition of affected source would ensure that the permitting 
authority is kept up-to-date with new emission points at the plant. A 
concern with a broad definition of affected source such as the entire 
plant was that the permitting authorities may not remain apprised of 
changes to the emission points within a plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the magnetic tape manufacturing source category, the EPA is 
proposing a narrow definition of affected source based on the 
notification considerations. In addition, because of the high level of 
existing control, and the small growth in the industry, the EPA thinks 
that there may not be a significant interest in using the additional 
flexibility that could be afforded under section 112(l) or emissions 
averaging with a broader definition of affected source. Therefore, the 
affected source is proposed to be each piece of equipment requiring 
control in a magnetic tape manufacturing operation. The EPA solicits 
comments on this proposed definition.

K. Selection of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    Except as specified in Sec. 63.701(a)(2) of the proposed rule, the 
owner or operator of any magnetic tape manufacturing operation subject 
to these standards would be required to fulfill the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements outlined in Sec. 63.10 of the proposed 
General Provisions.9 These requirements include those associated 
with startup, shutdown, or malfunctions; operation and maintenance 
records; compliance monitoring system records; performance test 
reporting; quarterly reports of no excess emissions; and exceedances of 
the monitored values required under this subpart. These quarterly 
reports must contain the monitored value for the periods constituting 
exceedances, and a description and timing of steps taken to address the 
cause of the exceedances. Owners or operators that are not subject to 
the control provisions of the standards in accordance with 
Sec. 63.701(a)(2) are only subject to certain provisions of 40 CFR part 
63 subpart A, as described in section VI.A.2. However, they are subject 
to Sec. 63.703(g) and shall record the amount of solvent utilized 
annually and report this quantity to the Administrator. The first 
report shall cover the 12-month period following the effective date of 
the standards, with subsequent reports covering each subsequent 12-
month period. All reports must be submitted within 30 days following 
the end of a 12-month period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are several other monitoring results that should be included 
in the quarterly reports. Quarterly reports should contain, as 
appropriate, information obtained from visual inspections of car seals 
on bypass lines and the dates of the inspections, solvent usage data 
for sources that are only subject to Sec. 63.703(g), and the results 
from material balance calculations that show exceedances of the 
standards.
    In addition to the above requirements, owners or operators 
complying with the proposed standard for wash sinks by maintaining a 
freeboard ratio would have to calculate and record the freeboard ratio 
any time that solvent is added to the wash sink. Times during which a 
freeboard ratio of 75 percent or greater is not maintained is a 
violation of the standard and should be noted in the quarterly report. 
The Administrator feels that calculation of the freeboard ratio 
whenever solvent is added to the sink is sufficient to ensure that the 
freeboard ratio is being maintained. More frequent determinations are 
not necessary because the freeboard ratio will not increase unless more 
solvent is added to the wash sink. Less frequent calculation of 
freeboard ratio is also not appropriate because wash sinks are 
frequently used in this source category.

L. Applicability of the General Provisions

    The proposed General Provisions to part 63 of the Act apply to 
owners or operators subject to the proposed standards. However, the 
owners or operators of facilities that are subject to Sec. 63.703(g) 
(solvent usage cutoff) are exempt from certain requirements of the 
General Provisions. For example, much of Sec. 63.6 does not apply 
because it is related to compliance with emission standards and sources 
subject to Sec. 63.703(g) of the proposed rule are not subject to 
emission standards.10 Also, Sec. 63.6(e) directs affected sources 
to prepare and submit a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan; 
sources subject to Sec. 63.703(g) of the proposed rule do not have to 
prepare this plan.11 No parts of Sec. 63.7 and Sec. 63.8 apply to 
sources subject to Sec. 63.703(g) because no testing or monitoring is 
required by this proposed provision.12 Most of the notification, 
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of the proposed General 
Provisions also do not apply (except for initial notification 
requirement in Sec. 63.9(b)) because they pertain to emission 
standards, performance testing, or monitoring. The specific sections of 
the proposed General Provisions that do not apply to sources subject to 
Sec. 63.703(g) are identified in Sec. 63.701(a)(2) of the proposed 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\0Ibid.
    \1\1Ibid.
    \1\2Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other exceptions made by the proposed standards to the requirements 
of the General Provisions affect Sec. 63.7 and Sec. 63.8.13 
Section 63.7(e)(3), under performance testing requirements, requires 
affected sources to conduct three test runs as part of the performance 
test.14 However, owners or operators of existing facilities 
demonstrating compliance with a material balance calculation are not 
subject to this provision because the initial compliance demonstration 
is not a typical test consisting of various runs. The material balance 
calculation averaged over a 3-day period provides the initial 
compliance information. Owners or operators of those existing 
facilities using VOC CEM's for determination of inlet and outlet 
concentrations and for demonstration of ongoing compliance are not 
subject to Sec. 63.7 for their control device because they are not 
required to conduct an initial performance test for the control device. 
Under these circumstances the control device performance is known via 
the continuous measurement of VOC concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\3Ibid.
    \1\4Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many sections of Sec. 63.8, Monitoring requirements, do not apply 
to facilities demonstrating compliance via a material balance 
calculation. For example, such sources are not subject to any 
requirements related to continuous monitoring systems, or performance 
evaluations for such systems. The specific sections of Sec. 63.8 that 
do not apply are outlined in Sec. 63.704 of the proposed rule.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

    A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the 
proposed standards in accordance with Section 307(d)(5) of the Clean 
Air Act. Persons wishing to make oral presentation on the proposed 
standards for magnetic tape manufacturing should contact the EPA at the 
address given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Oral 
presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the 
public may file a written statement before, during, or within 30 days 
after the hearing. Written statements should be addressed to the Air 
and Radiation Docket and Information Center given in the ADDRESSES 
section of this preamble and should refer to Docket No. A-91-31.
    A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be 
available for public inspection and copying during normal working hours 
at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in 
Washington, DC (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).

B. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 
submitted to or otherwise considered by the EPA in the development of 
this proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are:
    (1) To allow interested parties to identify and locate documents 
readily so that they can participate intelligently and effectively in 
the rulemaking process; and
    (2) To serve as the record in case of judicial review (except for 
interagency review material [section 307(d) (7)(a) of the Clean Air 
Act]).

C. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.''
    Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order 12866, OMB has 
notified the EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory 
action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. The Agency has 
submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to 
OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public 
record.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request document has been prepared by the EPA 
(ICR No. 1678.01), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, 
Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M Street, SW. (2136), Washington, 
DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740. The public reporting burden for 
this collection of information is estimated to average 650 hours per 
facility annually including time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, conducting performance tests, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of 
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 
burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136, U. S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, and to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for 
EPA.'' The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the 
EPA to consider potential impacts of proposed regulations on small 
entities. If a preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed 
regulation would have a significant economic impact on 20 percent or 
more of small entities, then a regulatory flexibility analysis must be 
prepared.
    Present Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines indicate that an 
economic impact should be considered significant if it meets one of the 
following criteria:
    (1) Compliance increases annual production costs by more than 5 
percent, assuming costs are passed onto consumers;
    (2) Compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small entities 
are at least 10 percent more than compliance costs as a percentage of 
sales for large entities;
    (3) Capital costs of compliance represent a ``significant'' portion 
of capital available to small entities, considering internal cash flow 
plus external financial capabilities; or
    (4) Regulatory requirements are likely to result in closures of 
small entities.
    The results of the economic impact analysis (EIA) indicate that the 
first and fourth criteria are satisfied for one of the three small 
businesses in the regulated portion of the magnetic tape industry.
    The EIA calculated facility and product-specific price increases 
based on the assumption that each facility would need to recoup fully 
its control costs through a price increase. The results indicated that 
one facility (a small business) would require a price increase of 
approximately 5 percent. In addition, an evaluation of post-regulation 
facility earnings indicated that the same facility would experience a 
decline of approximately 36 percent in earnings if it is required to 
comply with the proposed regulation.
    The combination of satisfying the significant price increase 
criterion as well as satisfying the significant impact on post-
regulation earnings criterion indicate that one small entity is 
expected to experience a significant economic impact due to 
implementation of the proposed regulation.
    The small business administration's size standards was used to 
identify three facilities out of the fourteen regulated facilities as 
being small businesses. Due to the significant impacts expected to be 
experienced by one of the small facilities, a regulatory flexibility 
analysis was conducted to assess the feasibility of providing 
additional flexibility to small businesses complying with the proposed 
regulation.
    For small businesses in general, one mechanism that was identified 
as potentially helpful was the low solvent usage cutoff described 
earlier in this document. However, any small business whose solvent 
usage exceeds the cutoff level will have operations similar to those 
located at large businesses, and therefore will have the same potential 
to emit HAP as the large businesses. All three small businesses 
identified as being subject to the proposed regulation have solvent 
usage levels above the cutoff level. Due to the above reasoning, there 
are no technical reasons for examining different requirements for small 
businesses as opposed to large businesses.
    For the small business with significant economic impacts, 
monitoring is the least costly activity that would achieve the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act. The recommended recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements of the rule are also the minimum proposed for 
the General Provisions for the NESHAP program. The facility could 
minimize its recordkeeping and reporting burden by continuing to stay 
in compliance with the regulation. More detailed reporting is necessary 
for deviations from compliance.

F. Miscellaneous

    In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this 
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory 
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies. 
The Administrator will welcome comments on all aspects of the proposed 
regulation, including health, economic and technological issues, and on 
the proposed test methods.
    This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of 
promulgation. This review will include an assessment of such factors as 
evaluation of the residual health risks, any overlap with other 
programs, the existence of alternative methods, enforceability, 
improvements in emission control technology and health data, and the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

G. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections 
101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 
U.S.C., 7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 28, 1994.
Carol Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-5313 Filed 3-10-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P